Remember that North and South Korea are still ostensibly at war .. there has been no peace treaty between the two following the early 1950s Chinese influenced hostilities between the US backed South and the one time Russian backed North .. the militarised zone between the two political entities is one of the most heavily fortified borders on earth ..
There have been several reported overtures from the North to the USA about a treaty but these have been rejected by the Americans on the basis that the North's human rights record will not allow for any kind of rapprochement .. I am a great admirer of the USA, however the fact that the USA turns a blind eye to the HR record of many 'allies' shows how two faced it is necessary to be in the world of global, even local politics
I am a great admirer of the USA, however the fact that the USA turns a blind eye to the HR record of many 'allies' shows how two faced it is necessary to be in the world of global, even local politics
More to point, their own human rights record is pretty horrific!
What does it matter if it offends so what if that's someone's view then they should be allowed to say it
We are not talking about 'offence'. That's not the issue. We're talking about an astonishing lack of knowledge, and subsequent inability to do an effective job.
I don't agree with loads that the man says but his speech yesterday was superb it made people feel awkward and made people listen and debate
People listen and debate every day. Feeling awkward... what? Why is that a good thing? That's not even what happened, but if it was... why would that be a goal!?
why are you out Was Reece Mogg wrong to air his opinion because it was different to what others believed , The man is a practicing Catholic and as such holds strong beliefs on certain issues right or wrong their his beliefs and hats off to him for having the balls to say it
When I first saw Reece-Mogg on HIGNFY I thought he was funny, smart and surprisingly honest for a politician. I've since learned of some of his views and grown to not like him very much. That he frames his political ideology with religion is downright scary to me. I would like to get to a place where religion has no power whatsoever, let alone in ruling, but RM, despite being smart, believes in ludicrous imaginary deities, so fuck that.
Personally, I don't vote for anyone based on the size of their balls. I don't think having the guts to say something usurps the fact that what they're saying is fucking nuts.
What does it matter if it offends so what if that's someone's view then they should be allowed to say it
We are not talking about 'offence'. That's not the issue. We're talking about an astonishing lack of knowledge, and subsequent inability to do an effective job.
I don't agree with loads that the man says but his speech yesterday was superb it made people feel awkward and made people listen and debate
People listen and debate every day. Feeling awkward... what? Why is that a good thing? That's not even what happened, but if it was... why would that be a goal!?
yes you have missed something the bit where their leader has just sent a nuke to wipe out a part of the world because its the only way it will happen
Just to clarify - if the NK leader, whose people are starving and have no issue with us, decides to start a war with the US, you're ok with the US killing all those starving, poor people?
What does it matter if it offends so what if that's someone's view then they should be allowed to say it
We are not talking about 'offence'. That's not the issue. We're talking about an astonishing lack of knowledge, and subsequent inability to do an effective job.
I don't agree with loads that the man says but his speech yesterday was superb it made people feel awkward and made people listen and debate
People listen and debate every day. Feeling awkward... what? Why is that a good thing? That's not even what happened, but if it was... why would that be a goal!?
so you agree then parts of his Speech were great its him you dont like as a person , Its people like Trump and Mogg that should inspire and motivate other Politicians who are seen as more acceptable to the main stream to stop being bland and boring and speak up
No, that's not even close to what I said. And it's a sad state of affairs if that's what you took from my post.
Honestly, it seems to me that you respect people speaking up, no matter how utterly fucking stupid the words are. It's a fascinating, and equally scary insight.
how could i be fine with people dying unless i am a mass murderer i would never find it fine, i would however not condemn it because if their leader had decided to start the process of his people dying due to his actions then so be it,
i cant change it but i certainly would advocate our pm pressing the button on anyone who was willing to do it to us, So i can hardly condemn a nation or leader for doing it
you dont live in a world where religion has no power its probably the most powerful entity on the planet, you dont have to follow religion that's a personal choice, the fact RM does and is happy to stand by his principles is fine by me, because as someone with my own mind i can choose to ignore or resist those views,so to wish for a world where religion has no power is as mad as some of the things trump says, People find solace and peace with following, what sort of a place would we live in when people are happy to remove that joy and freedom to billions of people its just as wrong as trumps Far Right opinions
you said
"The essence of having a politician that doesn't play by the rules is appealing to me." "The idea that this is the guy to do it is ridiculous. "
So what did you mean by that , Trump doesn't play by the rules nor Did Farage or RM in similar respects but they stood by the values they said what they believed and had the gumption to say it publicly knowing it would cause criticism and disgust from many , but they said it,
The world will always be better off when people say what they actually think instead of towing imaginary lines and party politics, Yet behind doors be fake and dishonest
Gordon Brown was Fake and dishonest yet the only time i respected him was when he said the lady was a bigot at least he was true to himself and his constitutes that day by showing his true colours his parties actual stance and view point
They should all not be afraid to speak it let it out there and face the consequences of it, You say its scary far too much dont be afraid whats there to fear when its showing peoples true colours
how could i be fine with people dying unless i am a mass murderer i would never find it fine, i would however not condemn it because if their leader had decided to start the process of his people dying due to his actions then so be it
Still sounds a bit bloodthirsty to me. Personally, I hope that if KJU does cause any kind of a problem, he and his cohorts will get taken out surgically. But even if that happened, they'd still be in a humanitarian crisis.
you dont live in a world where religion has no power its probably the most powerful entity on the planet, you dont have to follow religion that's a personal choice, the fact RM does and is happy to stand by his principles is fine by me, because as someone with my own mind i can choose to ignore or resist those views,so to wish for a world where religion has no power is as mad as some of the things trump says, People find solace and peace with following, what sort of a place would we live in when people are happy to remove that joy and freedom to billions of people its just as wrong as trumps Far Right opinions
I was referring to an ideal, not a realistic goal. But then again... is it that mad to hope for a world where religion isn't influential? Our own country used to be run by the church, far more than it is now, while people of no religion in the UK now outnumber those who claim to be religious. As education of the masses improves, religion dwindles. It could be some time, but it's not mad to hope that organised insanity disappears.
You say its scary far too much dont be afraid whats there to fear when its showing peoples true colours
As long as there's anyone in the world who thinks Donald J. Trump is remotely close to being a credible world leader, I'll be fucking terrified of you.
I think Trump is grandstanding. He knows his rhetoric will be widely condemned by the diplomatic community and by China and Russia but he couldn't care less. He likes the sound of his own voice and knows full well that North Korea has no intentions of firing on US territory or at South Korea. All his jingoistic words are meaningless and he knows it.
Kim Jong- Un isn't going to stop his missile programme and will continue to test launch.
The only danger of this going tits up is as already has been said is for NK to mess up and for a missile going wrong.
Trump is a loose cannon and KJU a tyrannical nut job. How on earth do we let these people get anywhere near power.
Where Trump is concerned it's called "the democratic process".
Is that the democratic process where Trump got 46.4% (62.98mn) of the votes and Clinton got 48.5% (65.85mn)?
I think Trump is grandstanding. He knows his rhetoric will be widely condemned by the diplomatic community and by China and Russia but he couldn't care less. He likes the sound of his own voice and knows full well that North Korea has no intentions of firing on US territory or at South Korea. All his jingoistic words are meaningless and he knows it.
Kim Jong- Un isn't going to stop his missile programme and will continue to test launch.
The only danger of this going tits up is as already has been said is for NK to mess up and for a missile going wrong.
Trump is a loose cannon and KJU a tyrannical nut job. How on earth do we let these people get anywhere near power.
Where Trump is concerned it's called "the democratic process".
The trouble with the democratic process as in the UK is that despite getting a minority of the vote you can end up winning. The voting systems in a lot of countries don't really deliver.
Then the democratic process should change the process, until they do it's the way it works.
Do you mean how it required two thirds of both houses amend the constitution? Or 2/3s or state legislatures?
I mean that's not really "democracy" is it, because democracy is 50+1?
Unless you think, you know, 2/3s, is a reasonable bar for completely altering a country's foundation...
So now you're interested in the Constitution? I thought you were a Marxist. At least that's what you have stated in the past. Most of the time I see you as a "fence-sitter", you try very hard to never completely come down on one side or the other, you can make a lot of friends that way, and get a lot of "likes". When it comes to Trump, or the potential loss of your "bennies", you're a different SD, totally and extremely left. Why don't you listen to what Trump said in his speech, maybe you'll see that YOUR President has YOUR interests at heart? Why don't you read the newest Republican health care plan and understand that it does not exclude pre-existing conditions? Why don't you realise that the constant attacks by the left on this President are doing nothing but solidifying his Presidency? Why don't you and other lefties acknowledge that Obamacare is crashing on it's own, and would have ended in it's current form even if Clinton was President? Why don't you give some credit where it's due, even if you have to give it to Donald Trump?
Okay good, let's talk policy.
Now on my "bennies." So first off, I am 31. I am largely in good health, and doing crude math as best I can to what healthcare costs, I turn a very sizable profit for insurance companies. My pre-existing condition is treated using very inexpensive, formulary drugs, some of which have been around for decades, and occasional doctors visits.
So your healthcare costs are actually triple to quadruple to mine. So that means, in our current system, I am most likely subsidizing you and keeping your costs down (see charts page 3-6).
Now, onto the new healthcare bill, Graham-Cassidy. Let's start with some top line numbers. We can't get them from the CBO unfortunately, because there won't be a CBO score ready in time which means that Republicans will be voting on something without knowing what it will do to Premiums or how many people if will kick off insurance.
So, we're looking at 32 million more people uninsured over the next decade. That will be 16 million uninsured next year, and on top of that a premium increase ON AVERAGE of 20%. Want to guess whose will go up more? Spoiler, it's largely based on age....
Now as to protections for pre-existing conditions, the bill does not, unto itself, repeal protections for pre-existing conditions. But what it does do is: 1) Allow insurance companies to charge whatever they want, removing that 3:1 cap which you almost certainly benefit from
So, here's what that means: while everyone in a state who doesn't repeal the pre-existing conditions clause will still technically have ACCESS to insurance, there is no limit to what insurance companies can charge. So, for example, if you have or have had cancer, your premiums could be $15,000 per months. Now, you still technically have ACCESS, but that's not realistic, is it?
2) Allow STATES to remove protections for pre-existing conditions
I know Scott Walker of Wisconsin is already threatening to do this, I'm sure there will be more.
3) Removes lifetime spending caps. So, say if I got cancer in October and an insurance company had to pay for my chemo. They could then deny me coverage next year and for every year henceforth, EVEN IF I GET IT THROUGH MY WORK, because I exceeded my maximum "lifetime cap" this year.
4) It drastically cuts, then ends, Medicaid, the healthcare system used by poor people, children, people with disabilities, and so many more. But fuck them, right?
What's genuinely sad is that you're more likely of the two of us to get fucked over by this.
I would have, really, any respect for you or your opinions if you weren't just a complete partisan hack regurgitating Fox News and conservative talk radio talking points. Were you calling for this same respect of the President when Obama was President? Of course fucking not.
That said, if Trump is able to get a "Dream Act" through congress keeping 800,000-1,000,000 Dreamers or DACA recipients here, then I will happily give him credit.
Haha this is not untrue. But also, I work in Healthcare, both my parents work in Healthcare, a couple of my closest friends work in Healthcare. This might prove your point even more but a lot of that was stuff I just sort of knew off the top of my head and found sources for.
I think Trump is grandstanding. He knows his rhetoric will be widely condemned by the diplomatic community and by China and Russia but he couldn't care less. He likes the sound of his own voice and knows full well that North Korea has no intentions of firing on US territory or at South Korea. All his jingoistic words are meaningless and he knows it.
Kim Jong- Un isn't going to stop his missile programme and will continue to test launch.
The only danger of this going tits up is as already has been said is for NK to mess up and for a missile going wrong.
Trump is a loose cannon and KJU a tyrannical nut job. How on earth do we let these people get anywhere near power.
Where Trump is concerned it's called "the democratic process".
Is that the democratic process where Trump got 46.4% (62.98mn) of the votes and Clinton got 48.5% (65.85mn)?
I think Trump is grandstanding. He knows his rhetoric will be widely condemned by the diplomatic community and by China and Russia but he couldn't care less. He likes the sound of his own voice and knows full well that North Korea has no intentions of firing on US territory or at South Korea. All his jingoistic words are meaningless and he knows it.
Kim Jong- Un isn't going to stop his missile programme and will continue to test launch.
The only danger of this going tits up is as already has been said is for NK to mess up and for a missile going wrong.
Trump is a loose cannon and KJU a tyrannical nut job. How on earth do we let these people get anywhere near power.
Where Trump is concerned it's called "the democratic process".
Is that the democratic process where Trump got 46.4% (62.98mn) of the votes and Clinton got 48.5% (65.85mn)?
Just a quick response to your first assumptions. I'm in good health, have always been in good health, and have been paying into "the system" longer than you have been alive.
Just a quick response to your first assumptions. I'm in good health, have always been in good health, and have been paying into "the system" longer than you have been alive.
Good, and long may it continue. But you're not paying into a government entity, you're paying into insurance. So there's no tabulation or credit the more you pay as there is with Social Security or a retirement fund. You just... Pay more.
And the fact remains that from a purely actuarial standpoint, you remain a larger risk on average. And because an insurance company is carrying that risk and because they still need to ensure they get enough money coming in to make a profit, it will drive up costs for you and/or others.
it's Obamacare that's driving up costs, won't have to worry about that much longer though, will we.
Well, that's true to some extent, but Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson-Koch will not only raise premiums, it will kick 32 million off their insurance, 16 million next year. So, good point...?
Of the 32 million, how many will be "kicked off" who didn't want to be there in the first place? Those only on there to avoid the fines, or those who had good private insurance before Obamacare drove their premiums out of reach?
Since Obamacare came in the medical insurers have made record profits on record turnover. Obamacare didn't put up your premiums, your insurance company did, because they could and because Obamacare was a good excuse.
If you think they're going to suddenly lower your premiums and willingly make less money you're delusional.
Of the 32 million, how many will be "kicked off" who didn't want to be there in the first place? Those only on there to avoid the fines, or those who had good private insurance before Obamacare drove their premiums out of reach?
First 16 million will probably be people on Medicaid, children, people with disabilities, people who get some government assistance to get health insurance and people who buy their insurance from the marketplace like me. This will blow up the existing marketplaces.
So when is the point where you provide facts about why this is a good idea because honestly I'm tired of explaining things to you that could drastically impact your life.
Also, I have this sneaking suspicion that you're on or very close to Medicaid.
Of the 32 million, how many will be "kicked off" who didn't want to be there in the first place? Those only on there to avoid the fines, or those who had good private insurance before Obamacare drove their premiums out of reach?
First 16 million will probably be people on Medicaid, children, people with disabilities, people who get some government assistance to get health insurance and people who buy their insurance from the marketplace like me. This will blow up the existing marketplaces.
So when is the point where you provide facts about why this is a good idea because honestly I'm tired of explaining things to you that could drastically impact your life.
Also, I have this sneaking suspicion that you're on or very close to Medicaid.
Since Obamacare came in the medical insurers have made record profits on record turnover. Obamacare didn't put up your premiums, your insurance company did, because they could and because Obamacare was a good excuse.
If you think they're going to suddenly lower your premiums and willingly make less money you're delusional.
Well I'm not delusional, we'll see what happens won't we? There cannot possibly be a bigger mess than Obamacare. A freind of mine just had a hernia operation, I'll see if I can get some figures from him to illustrate.
Comments
There have been several reported overtures from the North to the USA about a treaty but these have been rejected by the Americans on the basis that the North's human rights record will not allow for any kind of rapprochement ..
I am a great admirer of the USA, however the fact that the USA turns a blind eye to the HR record of many 'allies' shows how two faced it is necessary to be in the world of global, even local politics
Personally, I don't vote for anyone based on the size of their balls. I don't think having the guts to say something usurps the fact that what they're saying is fucking nuts.
Just to clarify - if the NK leader, whose people are starving and have no issue with us, decides to start a war with the US, you're ok with the US killing all those starving, poor people? No, that's not even close to what I said. And it's a sad state of affairs if that's what you took from my post.
Honestly, it seems to me that you respect people speaking up, no matter how utterly fucking stupid the words are. It's a fascinating, and equally scary insight.
Surviving one week under Kim Jon Un
Surviving two weeks under Kim Jong Un
Surviving three weeks under Kim Jong Un, etc...
i cant change it but i certainly would advocate our pm pressing the button on anyone who was willing to do it to us, So i can hardly condemn a nation or leader for doing it
you dont live in a world where religion has no power its probably the most powerful entity on the planet, you dont have to follow religion that's a personal choice, the fact RM does and is happy to stand by his principles is fine by me, because as someone with my own mind i can choose to ignore or resist those views,so to wish for a world where religion has no power is as mad as some of the things trump says, People find solace and peace with following, what sort of a place would we live in when people are happy to remove that joy and freedom to billions of people its just as wrong as trumps Far Right opinions
you said
"The essence of having a politician that doesn't play by the rules is appealing to me."
"The idea that this is the guy to do it is ridiculous. "
So what did you mean by that , Trump doesn't play by the rules nor Did Farage or RM in similar respects but they stood by the values they said what they believed and had the gumption to say it publicly knowing it would cause criticism and disgust from many , but they said it,
The world will always be better off when people say what they actually think instead of towing imaginary lines and party politics, Yet behind doors be fake and dishonest
Gordon Brown was Fake and dishonest yet the only time i respected him was when he said the lady was a bigot at least he was true to himself and his constitutes that day by showing his true colours his parties actual stance and view point
They should all not be afraid to speak it let it out there and face the consequences of it, You say its scary far too much dont be afraid whats there to fear when its showing peoples true colours
Now on my "bennies."
So first off, I am 31. I am largely in good health, and doing crude math as best I can to what healthcare costs, I turn a very sizable profit for insurance companies. My pre-existing condition is treated using very inexpensive, formulary drugs, some of which have been around for decades, and occasional doctors visits.
You, on the other hand, I'm guessing are in your 50s-60s. So, let's play the game of who is really driving up healthcare costs.
http://www.healthcostinstitute.org/files/Age-Curve-Study_0.pdf
So your healthcare costs are actually triple to quadruple to mine. So that means, in our current system, I am most likely subsidizing you and keeping your costs down (see charts page 3-6).
Again, I get no subsidies. But, because there is a cap in Obamacare on how much people can be charged...well, you likely do in a way. And that's true even if you're not sick, which I hope you're not, because at your age you're considered a much higher actuarial risk to insurance companies.
Now, onto the new healthcare bill, Graham-Cassidy. Let's start with some top line numbers. We can't get them from the CBO unfortunately, because there won't be a CBO score ready in time which means that Republicans will be voting on something without knowing what it will do to Premiums or how many people if will kick off insurance.
So, here we go:
The Kaiser Family Foundation has a good breakout section by section of the bill as well (and comparing it with ACA):
http://www.kff.org/interactive/proposals-to-replace-the-affordable-care-act/
So, we're looking at 32 million more people uninsured over the next decade. That will be 16 million uninsured next year, and on top of that a premium increase ON AVERAGE of 20%. Want to guess whose will go up more? Spoiler, it's largely based on age....
Now as to protections for pre-existing conditions, the bill does not, unto itself, repeal protections for pre-existing conditions. But what it does do is:
1) Allow insurance companies to charge whatever they want, removing that 3:1 cap which you almost certainly benefit from
So, here's what that means: while everyone in a state who doesn't repeal the pre-existing conditions clause will still technically have ACCESS to insurance, there is no limit to what insurance companies can charge. So, for example, if you have or have had cancer, your premiums could be $15,000 per months. Now, you still technically have ACCESS, but that's not realistic, is it?
2) Allow STATES to remove protections for pre-existing conditions
I know Scott Walker of Wisconsin is already threatening to do this, I'm sure there will be more.
3) Removes lifetime spending caps.
So, say if I got cancer in October and an insurance company had to pay for my chemo. They could then deny me coverage next year and for every year henceforth, EVEN IF I GET IT THROUGH MY WORK, because I exceeded my maximum "lifetime cap" this year.
4) It drastically cuts, then ends, Medicaid, the healthcare system used by poor people, children, people with disabilities, and so many more. But fuck them, right?
What's genuinely sad is that you're more likely of the two of us to get fucked over by this.
Now, is Obamacare collapsing? No, no it's not. You don't have to trust me, trust the Trump Administration and their own data.
Are there problems with the law? Yes. And I've already talked about how this is a conservative plan--the expansion of private, for-profit industry. It was first executed by Mitt Romney as governor of Massachusetts. Parts of it, and here's the real kicker, including the much hated individual mandate, actually have their roots at the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation.
I would have, really, any respect for you or your opinions if you weren't just a complete partisan hack regurgitating Fox News and conservative talk radio talking points. Were you calling for this same respect of the President when Obama was President? Of course fucking not.
That said, if Trump is able to get a "Dream Act" through congress keeping 800,000-1,000,000 Dreamers or DACA recipients here, then I will happily give him credit.
You have too much time on your hands!!!!
And the fact remains that from a purely actuarial standpoint, you remain a larger risk on average. And because an insurance company is carrying that risk and because they still need to ensure they get enough money coming in to make a profit, it will drive up costs for you and/or others.
If you think they're going to suddenly lower your premiums and willingly make less money you're delusional.
So when is the point where you provide facts about why this is a good idea because honestly I'm tired of explaining things to you that could drastically impact your life.
Also, I have this sneaking suspicion that you're on or very close to Medicaid.
A freind of mine just had a hernia operation, I'll see if I can get some figures from him to illustrate.