A guy wins a couple Grammys and suddenly he's a music expert.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Donald Trump Inauguration - January 2017
- Thread starter Bazza
- Start date
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Obamacare is great for the people in the high risk pool. It has been terrible for everybody that is healthy, working and buying insurance individually. Their premiums have went through the roof to pay for the high risk pool and people that live off of handouts.
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
oh lord. I remember this video. I'm going to have nightmares tonight. Ha. This is disturbing.
I'm just hoping that Trump will have at least 1 year of real GDP growth in excess of 3%. Obama was the first president to not meet this benchmark since Hoover.
It's an open book test, less tax and regs, easy enough.I'm just hoping that Trump will have at least 1 year of real GDP growth in excess of 3%. Obama was the first president to not meet this benchmark since Hoover.
In a real-life example of pathetic fallacy, thunder and lightning began over San Francisco the moment his hand touched the Bible.
Insurance is always bad for those that are healthy.
I believe the rate of increase that people pay has actually decreased.
Coinsurance and higher deductibles (i.e. higher out-of-pocket cost at the point of service) can certainly help slow the growth of premiums.
And regarding healthy people, depends on one's point of view. Ask the 20-something year old person who's injured in an auto accident whether or not health insurance is a bad deal.
I touched on this on the middle class thread but just to supplement and restate.
I don't think one can measure any Presidency: a) upon its immediate conclusion; b) for probably 10-15 years minimum up the line; c) by whichever convenient statistics one wishes to quote. To cite Elizabeth Drew's book about the 1988 election yet again (proving once again every race is about 4/5 the same every single time):
"Both candidates are, of course, trying to define the economy in terms that best suit their own purposes. And each one has points on his side: Bush can point to a rise in the median family income (ten percent) since 1981; Dukakis can say that that rise has largely been caused by women entering the work force to produce two-earner families in order to make ends meet; Bush can point to the drop in interest rates and inflation under Reagan; Dukakis can point to the slow growth of earnings in those years. Bush often points to the fact that seventeen million new jobs have been created under Reagan, but the growth in jobs on an annual basis was greater under Carter than it has been under Reagan." (Drew, 1989: 272).
Besides, I love the way statistics are cited (and you can put in any name you wish) - they'll note Obama was elected in 2008 and oftentimes use the 2008 and 2009 budgets to rip the new President. Never mind that right now we are already operating under the FY2017 budget. So folks can pull stuff like citing the 2008 deficit (a FY that actually ended before Obama was even elected) and show it rising from $160 billion to $458 billion to over $1 trillion while accusing the guy of multiplying the deficit seven-fold. His tongue bathers are just as bad, with their 'he reduced the budget deficit by half' (yeah, let's ignore both his and his party's role in INCREASING it as well).
Of course let's be honest - it's never that simple. There are always variables over which politicians have no control. Some, of course, should be obvious to people with brain cells. If you pass a law requiring that every business has to provide health insurance to every full-time employee working over 32 hours, you can't suddenly be surprised when that business lays off anyone (everyone?) or reduces everyone's hours to push them below 32 hours. Let's at least be honest enough to admit that part of the massive increase in the deficit stems from the TARP bailout and related things - just like we can be honest enough to call at least some of Reagan's 1980s deficits "war time deficits" in light of the fact that the Cold War really was a war for national security. (His own biographer, Lou Cannon, updated the book in 2001 and noted that Reagan's deficits actually look better as time goes by than they did in 1991 when the book came out).
So that's my thing - we can cite statistics but they only tell part of the truth and pretty much never the whole story. My problem is that it seems too many people don't recognize that fact.
I basically subscribe to the 'two-year rule' - barring something unusual (like Trump and the GOP going on an infrastructure spending spree or defense spending spree....or WW3 starting), the first two 'Trump deficits' are really Obama deficits just like the first two Obama deficits are really Bush deficits.
But I've also learned the partisans care not one way or the other.
I don't think one can measure any Presidency: a) upon its immediate conclusion; b) for probably 10-15 years minimum up the line; c) by whichever convenient statistics one wishes to quote. To cite Elizabeth Drew's book about the 1988 election yet again (proving once again every race is about 4/5 the same every single time):
"Both candidates are, of course, trying to define the economy in terms that best suit their own purposes. And each one has points on his side: Bush can point to a rise in the median family income (ten percent) since 1981; Dukakis can say that that rise has largely been caused by women entering the work force to produce two-earner families in order to make ends meet; Bush can point to the drop in interest rates and inflation under Reagan; Dukakis can point to the slow growth of earnings in those years. Bush often points to the fact that seventeen million new jobs have been created under Reagan, but the growth in jobs on an annual basis was greater under Carter than it has been under Reagan." (Drew, 1989: 272).
Besides, I love the way statistics are cited (and you can put in any name you wish) - they'll note Obama was elected in 2008 and oftentimes use the 2008 and 2009 budgets to rip the new President. Never mind that right now we are already operating under the FY2017 budget. So folks can pull stuff like citing the 2008 deficit (a FY that actually ended before Obama was even elected) and show it rising from $160 billion to $458 billion to over $1 trillion while accusing the guy of multiplying the deficit seven-fold. His tongue bathers are just as bad, with their 'he reduced the budget deficit by half' (yeah, let's ignore both his and his party's role in INCREASING it as well).
Of course let's be honest - it's never that simple. There are always variables over which politicians have no control. Some, of course, should be obvious to people with brain cells. If you pass a law requiring that every business has to provide health insurance to every full-time employee working over 32 hours, you can't suddenly be surprised when that business lays off anyone (everyone?) or reduces everyone's hours to push them below 32 hours. Let's at least be honest enough to admit that part of the massive increase in the deficit stems from the TARP bailout and related things - just like we can be honest enough to call at least some of Reagan's 1980s deficits "war time deficits" in light of the fact that the Cold War really was a war for national security. (His own biographer, Lou Cannon, updated the book in 2001 and noted that Reagan's deficits actually look better as time goes by than they did in 1991 when the book came out).
So that's my thing - we can cite statistics but they only tell part of the truth and pretty much never the whole story. My problem is that it seems too many people don't recognize that fact.
I basically subscribe to the 'two-year rule' - barring something unusual (like Trump and the GOP going on an infrastructure spending spree or defense spending spree....or WW3 starting), the first two 'Trump deficits' are really Obama deficits just like the first two Obama deficits are really Bush deficits.
But I've also learned the partisans care not one way or the other.
There's the rub. That 20-something is no longer healthy so yes, insurance is now a good idea.
Just remember that your actual FACTS cannot compare with 'statements of faith' like 'I believe the rate of increase that people pay has actually decreased.' And remember that if your facts DON'T support those who like Obamacare, you must be lying, of course.
Which is why it's a good idea to buy it before one is "unhealthy" because it's not a bad deal if one realizes that accidents happen. When I graduated college at the age of 21, I purchased health insurance through my employer. I have had health insurance ever since. So no, a healthy person having health insurance is not a bad deal. Insurance is "a thing providing protection against a possible eventuality."
I may be wrong (because I'm old) but....don't colleges have a mandatory health insurance thing where at the very least you HAVE to have catastrophic coverage? Am I correct on that? I seem to recall that from my college days thirty years ago but since my parents would have handled it, I don't recall details (since I was military dependent in college, I had 100% coverage).
I DO know that at Dallas Seminary we had to submit an insurance coverage form every semester proving we at least had something for catastrophes.
I DO know that at Dallas Seminary we had to submit an insurance coverage form every semester proving we at least had something for catastrophes.
Latest threads
-
Game One of Alabama-Texas A&M Alabama Series Moved to Friday as Part of Doubleheader- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Bama Game Thread: Bama Gymnastics - NCAA Championship Semi-finals (ESPN2 | 4/18 @ 8pm CT)- Started by BamaNation
- Replies: 29
-
No. 1 Visits Tuscaloosa for Second Straight Week as Alabama Hosts Top-Ranked Texas A&M
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
-
I'm Declaring the Emperor has no clothes (NCAA rules implosion)
- Started by BamaNation
- Replies: 32
-
Home-and-Home Series Wraps Up as Alabama Welcomes UAB on Tuesday
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 1