monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

That was Trump, wasn't it?

Well, that was a disturbing article, with some complex issues re how to handle all this.

That made me laugh.

To the ones who believed him, yes.

Hillary was a wasted vote--Part of the problem and actively sabotaged the solution.

True and as long as I've been independent of my parents, I've had health insurance. Of course it was proportionately less expensive for me back then than it is for young people today. As well, I didn't have the ability to obtain health insurance after I fell sick or was injured, but young people today do.

This has always been a huge problem with Obamacare. It must have young healthy people buying health insurance if it has any chance to avoid the death spiral, but at the same time it has created a incentive for the young and healthy to go without insurance that outweighs the disincentive ( a fine or "tax") for not doing so.

Your analogy with auto insurance is seriously flawed. If you totaled your car tomorrow and had no insurance, you couldn't purchase a policy that would cover the "pre-existing damage" to your car. On the other hand if you totaled your health tomorrow and had no insurance, you could purchase a policy that would cover the "pre-existing damage" to you.

Anyone who wants a national health insurance program that can work should want to change the current conditions that have set off the program's death spiral, but it's unlikely that it will change anytime soon because of course it's a fabulous deal for Americans. Any deal where you can get a product or service for a fraction of what it will cost the provider is a fabulous one. Any time you can deal with an important aspect of life in a way that would have represented an incredibly stupid risk for your parents, but which now presents little risk to you, you're in a good situation. At least until it all goes to hell and just in time health insurance is simply impossible to obtain.

The 2008 crash happened because irrespective of the almost magical algorithms MIT graduates can develop, fundamental economic principles can't be jobbed. Selling goods or services for a total price that is a fraction of your total expense (which includes losses) is not sustainable no matter how you chop the total expense into tiny pieces and spread them around the world. You can't make money insuring known losses and disabling the law of large numbers and the principle of risk spread, by operating in a system where the people who are most likely to never have losses have a reason to believe they don't need your product, but can always buy it when they do.

Average people understand fundamental economic principles but they are far too often inclined to believe that the ubiquitous experts who show up everywhere to tell us that some arcane and complex financial product or technique can work economic wonders the way the Philosopher's Stone was believed to be able to allow alchemists to change scrap metal into gold because a) They've been convinced over their lives that experts are much smarter than them and can find ways to do all sorts of wonderful things they can't possibly understand and b) They want to believe because they want to ignore all the common sense alarm bells going off in their heads and indulge. They all want something for nothing.

The desire to indulge, "b," is the key here and it is the enabling force behind all sorts of financial schemes that border on or reside deep within the realm of fraud. The irony is that while "a" involves people thinking they are not as clever as they actually are, "b" involves them thinking they are more clever than they have any right to believe.



I'm sure you do, but if the current health insurance system is "fixed," why would we need to move on to State paid and controlled healthcare?

Obamacare was always only mean't as a "stop-gap" or a "way station" on the road to State paid and controlled healthcare. Several Democrats had the honesty or chutzpah to admit this during the legislative process, but how could anyone really have thought otherwise? Despite all of the BS peddled about how Obamacare alone would solve our problems with healthcare costs and insurance, the designers had to know it was doomed from the start which was a big reason for front loading all the goodies they knew people would love and not want to give up even when the **** hit the fan - as is precisely the case today.

Whether the front-loading of cost driving benefits was intended to shield Obama against the eventual **** spraying fan until at least he had a shot at re-election in 2012 or was intended to create a tar-baby from which the Republicans could not extricate themselves in the unlikely even that they gained control of the White House and Congress in 2012, 2016 or beyond, I can't say. For some involved, I'm sure the focus was limited to the former while other Democrats with greater foresight aimed for the latter and the continued progression to State paid and controlled healthcare. Although the Democrats weren't shielded from the fallout, to the extent that he was re-elected and maintained nice approval ratings over his terms, Obama was. Of more importance, in the long run, was the intent of those Democrats with foresight.

As we can see now, the front-loading was very effective in preserving the program despite the GOP taking control of the White House and holding onto Congress in 2016. The feckless GOP will likely manage to make some changes to Obamacare if only because leaving it to rot on the vine is not an option in light of the 2018 Mid-terms, however they will not be able to take back the candy Americans so love and they will not be able to save the plan. So, in the absence of a brand new plan that roots out the something for nothing aspects of Obamacare and still pleases Americans (a very tall order) a showdown on State paid and controlled healthcare seems to me to be inevitable and sooner than later: i.e. within the next ten years.

BTW - I'm sure you realize that a "Medicaid for all" or universal health care plan will cost the federal government a lot more than it is spending on healthcare right now. I'm pretty sure I know what your answer will be but I'll ask the question anyway because you might surprise me in some way: Where will the government get the money to pay for your desired plan?

wow, talk about ill conceived logic.

It would be a hell of a lot cheaper when you consider people taking their money from the private market and putting it into Medicare.

Medicare and Medicaid already manage the health of over 120 million Americans combined; the 'fear' of the government managing healthcare is unfounded.

I am, at least partly, insurance poor, wrecked.
I was first poor from the payments per month to keep insured. Something like 500 a month, with my stretched minor income. I paid it. It was gigantic.

Things exploded when I had two breast cancer surgeries/still have both boobs. thank you.. and then six eye surgeries as a not too long later followup.

Treasury Department fines Exxon Mobil $2 million for Russia violations on Rex Tillerson’s watch (PBS.org link)

Adding my new wife to my insurance plan made the cost double per pay period. It went from $206 to $425. 4 years ago, the same type of plan cost me $260 per month.

Wow, that seems significant. Wonder if they can make it stick with the atmosphere created in this administration. You know...ex-Exxon chief as Secretary of State, relentless regulatory rollback, etc.

I have a friend who will often post things like "241 years ago we had so many more freedoms than we have today. Can't do anything with the 50% of my take home pay without running into regulations everywhere".

I often respond with things like "Said no black person, woman, or gay person...ever"


Today he posted a question to his facebook page.... "Help me decide between buying a new Harley Davidson or a new Cesna plane. I'm having a hard time making up my mind."

I responded, "Yeah, seems like you're having a really hard time making ends meet with all those taxes stifling your potential."

This isn't really in response to your post, but your reality and the perception of your reality made me remember this interaction.

How so?

What are you even trying to talk about, Farmer? Talk about an "ill-conceived" post, eh?

Why would anybody bother to buy "insurance," in advance, if they can just wait until they want a handout and apply for coverage of PRE-EXISTING conditions after they actually exist?

If that's the way it works, you should immediately drop the insurance as soon as you get the treatment you need. You can always pick it up again, if you want more treatment for some new pre-existing condition that is diagnosed.

There would be no incentive whatsoever pay anything until you're guaranteed that you will receive more than you pay. That's why Obamacare premiums are so high--only those who currently need the medical care pay them (except the government, who gives your money to others to pay insurance premiums, who are happy to accept that dole).

That aint the concept of what "insurance" is about that I learned.

You, apparently, are contending that the additional taxes necessary to fund universal healthcare will be less (and a "hell of a lot less") than the current cost of private insurance. Upon what do you base that contention?

You also contend that Medicare and Medicaid "manages" the healthcare of over 120 million Americans. First of all, CMS reports that they "cover" over 100 million people through Medicare, Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program, and the Health Insurance Marketplace. I'm sure you're not going to argue that the amount over 100 million is anything like 20 or 30 million people (or whatever your number "over" 120 million may be). Secondly, Medicare doesn't manage it's recipient's healthcare. It doesn't even pay 100% of it's costs. (Frankly, I'm not sure how Medicaid specifically works)

According to it's website, the VA manages the healthcare of 9 million veterans, and we know how that's worked out. If the VA is the model for government managed healthcare, we have a lot to "fear."

Personally, I have no allegiance to any political party. I aint got no damn "ideology."

I'm a "single-issue" kinda guy. I don't care about church and state, abortion, military spending and intervention in foreign countries, 2nd amendment rights, immigration, the overall economy, or any of that irrelevant crap.

I will always just vote for the guy who promises me the most free ****, know what I'm sayin?

But FM's a scientist so we should at least offer him a chance to explain his logic.

Turns out that, like his homey, Comey, Mueller also has a personal ax to grind with Trump. Like Comey, he too was spurned by Trump when Trump refused to hire him after he applied for the FBI director job.

They'll fix his ass. You just hide and watch.

Conversation overheard between Mueller and Comey:

M: Jimbo, looks like we're gunna need you to write up another contemporaneous memo.

C: No problem. What do you want me to say this time?

M: Say that Trump said he needed your expert advice on how to get billions transferred to him by the Russians without it being traced. Say he offered you $100 million for your help---some **** like that, eh?

C: Done.

Trump mentions in an interview that if Mueller looked into financial dealings that were not ostensibly Russia-related, Trump would see that as crossing the line. Mueller immediately expands the parameters of the investigation to include the broader financial dealings of the Trump family. I like this Mueller guy.

more sotty words from two"giants of Illogic"

More better to be a giant of it, who knows how it works, than a pygmy, as you appear to be, eh, Farmer?