[SK in CV]

[quote=livinincali][quote=SK in CV]Great way to avoid the question. Attack it.[/quote]

It’s not a question. It’s a hypothetical that attempts attempts to influence you into thinking you’re sexist. It infers that if Hillary was a man her various transgressions would be ignored, or at least tolerated. Maybe in the past that would be the case but she represents the corrupt politics Americans are growing to hate. It’s that hatred of the corruption that is her problem, not because she’s a woman. I think PC crowd would love to have a woman president but not at the expense of another self interested corrupt politician. At this point probably more than half of the country want neither as a choice.[/quote]

No, it was a question. A leading one, but a question nonetheless. Please be specific, what corruption? Do you have evidence to support the charge? (full disclosure, Clinton was never my 1st choice. I’ll be happy to have a woman president, and she will probably come to the office with the most deserving resume in the last century. But I have a lot of problems with both her stated current policies and her policies of the past. Those differences pale in comparison to the problems of a Trump presidency, beginning with his lack of qualifications.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=livinincali][quote=zk]
Our culture says that women shouldn’t be loud, pointy, assertive, in charge, etc. We like to think we’ve evolved beyond that, but I think that’s giving us more credit than we’ve earned. Is it possible that so many people hate Hillary because, deep down, there’s some dissonance between what we want from a woman and what we see from Hillary?

Now, temeculaguy, you’ve always seemed like a pretty enlightened, reasonable guy. I’m really curious why you hate Hillary so much. And I want you to be honest with yourself and picture her as a man and see if you hate her so much. If she held the same policy positions she does now, and had basically the same personality she does now, but was a man, would you hate her so much? Would you vow to vote for anybody but her, even if that anybody was an immature, narcissistic, ignorant lunatic who poses a real and serious threat to the safety and prosperity of this country?

Do you really think that he would be a better president than her, or are you letting some vague, primordial hatred for her get in the way of a reasonable and responsible vote?[/quote]

Well played progressive liberal guilt card. Better vote for Hillary so we aren’t labeled a sexist. Anything but Trump so we aren’t labeled a racist.[/quote]

Great way to avoid the question. Attack it.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Rich Toscano]This is a good idea, to make such a list. I think you’re not the only one wondering this. Bill aka Calculated Risk wrote a blog post discussing the potential aftermath of supporting Trump, in which he said:

[quote]I believe we are seeing a Litmus Test moment right now, especially for Republicans. I believe, in a few years, whether someone supported Trump or not will make a difference in how people are perceived. This will make or break some political careers.[/quote]

Even before reading that post I had been thinking the same thing. To me, Trump personifies the worst aspects of our political discourse and of our culture as a whole. If someone endorses Trump, that implies to me either that they are putting partisan politics way above the public good, or that they are hopelessly misguided. I’m not sure which is worse, but it doesn’t really matter — I will never, ever vote for any politician who endorses Trump.

Based on this thread and CR’s post, others feel that way too. I would think a lot of people do, but obviously I’m not that great at predicting what other people will think, as I never would have thought a monster like him could get nearly this far.

However, I do know that it would be cool to have a resource where you could enter a politician’s or business person’s name and see if they endorsed Trump, and to what degree (reluctant vs. enthusiastic). If CR is right, maybe that will make an impact in the future, and maybe even make some good come out of this cluster-f of an election.[/quote]

Popular theme lately. And it’s not just wonks like Bill McBride that are saying it. The following is from James Fallows of The Atlantic:

[quote]As this goes on, it’s not really about Trump any more. We know exactly who and what he is. He’s a genuinely-charming-at-times salesman and schmoozer with sub-Palin-level knowledge of public affairs, more on a par with “Chauncey Gardiner” of Being There. He instantly knows all about the gorilla, and next-to-nothing about the international economy. This isn’t his fault. It’s who he is and what he does.

Nor do I think that a litany of Trump’s knowledge-holes or judgment-lapses will make any difference to his already-committed supporters. It’s part of what they like about him.

But the people who I hope are thinking about how they’ll look in history’s eyes, are the leaders of a major political party now lining up to declare this man acceptable. Not one of them can pretend later on that they didn’t know what they were signing on for.
[/quote]

And only because this is both hilarious, and obvious, from Frank Rich at NY mag:

[quote] To understand how Trump has advanced to where he is now, and why he has been underestimated at almost every step, and why he has a shot at vanquishing Hillary Clinton in November, few road maps are more illuminating than Reagan’s unlikely path to the White House. One is almost tempted to say that Trump has been studying the Reagan playbook — but to do so would be to suggest that he actually might have read a book, another Trumpian claim for which there is scant evidence.[/quote]

[SK in CV]

[quote=harvey]She doesn’t agree that every kindergarten teacher should be slung with an AR15 in the classroom.

Which means she wants to repeal the 2nd amendment.[/quote]

Yeah. That’s what I was thinking. She wants to ignore the constitution. And probably the bible.

[SK in CV]

[quote=spdrun]Self-driving cars, baby! This being said, if realtors are contractors, there’s no reason why their drivers should not be classed as contractors.[/quote]

Realtors, or more specifically, licensed real estate agents, can be treated as independent contractors as a matter of law. The law provides no such exemption for uber drivers. The legal issues are not the same.

[SK in CV]

[quote=moneymaker]Think we should start another list of candidates who would like to repel the 2nd amendment, just found out Kamala Harris is one.She tried to outlaw guns in the city limits of San Francisco.
[/quote]

Any evidence that Harris wants to “repel [sic] the 2nd amendment”?

[SK in CV]

[quote=FlyerInHi]

Or maybe city heights will become the next North Park. But that’s going to be a couple cycles away.[/quote]

A few cycles away can be a lot longer than most people think. North Park was “a few cycles away” for a long time. Decades. I have a friend who bought the building his business was in, on Univ ave, hoping that redevelopment would come. Newberry’s left the area. REI came and went. He finally sold the building 10 years after he retired, and made a 50% profit. That was in 2012. He bought the building in 1981.

[SK in CV]

I suspect they’ll be either out of business, or completely change their model within a couple years. They’re facing some huge DOL issues, and their drivers can’t really make a living as it is. Even their part time drivers, can’t turn a profit. Flame out or make big changes. Those are their only options.

[SK in CV]

[quote=scaredyclassic]speaking of altered consciousness, we’re going to go check out isolation flotation tanks,this,week.[/quote]

Watch Altered States with William Hurt first. They can cause biological devolution. But only if mixed with the right drugs.

[SK in CV]

[quote=ucodegen][quote=SK in CV]
Is there some evidence that the administrative cost of providing care has gone up? Martin Shkreli’s testimony had absolutely nothing to do with the ACA.[/quote] On the first, talk to doctors who are leaving practice. There is no ‘official’ study that I have found yet, probably because that would be incredibly non-PC. On the second, yes it did.. though he did not tie it directly to the ACA. He was able to increase the price because he knew the ACA would cover it because it was deemed ‘lifesaving’ under the ACA – so insurance must pay, and distribute the cost over the rest of their client base. If insurance was not covering it, people would stop taking it because they could not afford it(morbid/heartless/but true) – so the price would be sensitive to price/demand curves ( as I mentioned, morality was not Shkreli’s strong point ).

This combined with the byzantine and lengthy process to start up production of these drugs (which were mostly off-patent) and to get approval from FDA to produce.. allowed Shkreli to charge what ever he wanted.. until someone else got through the FDA to make the drugs (at least 5 years).

When ever you introduce a unrelated payor aka insurer into a purchase arrangement – it shifts and distorts the price-demand curves. These drugs are life saving, by law must be supplied-(mandated by ACA), there was nothing in the ACA to cap the price on the drugs (charged by the manufacturer) therefore the insurers must cover the price no matter what is charged (per ACA). Shkreli did not directly state the relationship.. but he looked/smirked at the congressmen when questioned about the price increases and literally said that they created the situation. Do you think the congressmen who voted for the ACA, who said that to find out what is in it; we must pass it.. then turn around and say ‘oops’ or admit their screwup(s)?

Currently there is action to work around or try to cap the price by either direct cap action(through mod of ACA), or allow buying back drugs from other markets (ie. Canada) though the drugs are still produced in the US(ironic). I don’t expect the current congress to get anywhere on this.[/quote]

There are neither official nor unofficial studies that show that doctors are retiring because of the ACA. That’s because there is no evidence that there has been any significant exodus as a result of the law, despite the threats while the law was being negotiated. That’s because it’s been good for doctors. The exact same thing happened almost 55 years ago when medicare was being negotiated. Doctors threatened to retire. And it was the biggest boon to physicians’ income of all time. More people covered by insurance means more paying patients.

Even if it were true (and it’s not), I’m not sure how that directly increases administrative costs.

On the drugs, you’ll have to point to the part of the law that makes drug prices go up. I’ve read the law. Numerous times. I don’t recall ever seeing it.

The ACA did not introduce a new unrelated payer into the system. I’m sure you’re old enough to remember 5 years ago, medical insurance already existed.

[SK in CV]

[quote=ucodegen] The costs are still increasing AND if you check the years immediately prior to the implementation of the ACA, you will find that the rate of yearly increase in costs was dropping prior to the ACA. When the ACA was implemented, the rate of increase did not go further down.. though it did not seem to go up. I am pretty certain that the cost tracking does not take into account subsidies – since that appears from a different bucket (often SSDI).

BTW: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_bills/2015/07/health_care_premiums_going_up_obamacare_has_been_solidified_but_it_s_failed.html
25% to 36% increase on year is nothing to sneeze at.

Average number of people under subsidy – 87%.
Average subsidy $268/month or 72% of the monthly payment with individuals paying avg $105/mo. Without subsidies, premiums would be 2.5x higher.[/quote]

I’m not sure where you’re getting your information. It’s wrong. I never said that costs went down. I said the increase in the cost of the average health insurance policy slowed to 1/2 the rate of the years immediately preceding the passage of the law.

The subsidy information you’ve provided is misleading. The percentage only applies to those purchasing qualifying policies on federal and state exchanges. It has nothing to do with employer based plans, where subsidies aren’t available. But beyond that, it has absolutely nothing to do with anything I’ve said.

[SK in CV]

[quote=ucodegen]
[quote=SK in CV]Administrative costs are not higher now. As a matter of law, they’re capped. As part of the law. If you’re referring to providers administrative costs going up, there is no evidence to support the claim.[/quote]
Only the administrative costs on the part of insurance companies are capped. This does not include drug companies, hospitals etc. If you remember, Martin Shkreli basically testified to congress that they created this situation when brought in to testify why he jacked up the price on several of his companies drugs (One of them being a lifesaving AIDS drug that he boosted the price 50x from $13.50 a tablet to $750 – because of insurance, the market would bear it). He was slimy, smirking.. etc but unfortunately he was also correct. He was not convicted for what he did (though it was immoral) He was arrested on fraud due to a different issue.

The cap on administrative costs and limit on the loss ratio can be gamed by the insurance companies. The number is calculated as a percentage of premiums paid. If the underlying costs (hospital/drug etc) go up, the premiums have to go up… and therefore the insurance profits also go up (because their allowable charge is based upon percentage of premiums). This is why Defense contracts are sooo expensive. They are limited to about 8% of costs on profit (I used to work as a Defense Contractor). Yet we still see ridiculous costs on defense items that really should be cheaper.[/quote]

Is there some evidence that the administrative cost of providing care has gone up? Martin Shkreli’s testimony had absolutely nothing to do with the ACA.

[SK in CV]

[quote=ucodegen][quote=SK in CV]But nonetheless, the number of people who signed up for insurance, whether through a federal or state exchange is a precise measurement of the success of the ACA. It’s primary goal was to get people insured. It worked. A higher percentage of the population is insured now than at any other time. Arguing that it’s the fine is just stupid. The fine IS an integral part of the ACA.[/quote] Just because people complied due to the fine does not make it a success. The law did not do what it was intended to do – make medical care more affordable to most of the people affected. It did make it more affordable for a small number but more expensive for a greater number of people. All that the fine do was made people comply because the cost of not complying was higher than the cost of insurance.

[/quote]

No. It did not make medical care more expensive for a greater number of people. There is absolutely no evidence to support that claim. (Your personal experience may have been different. Your personal experience however, is not evidence of anything other than your experience.) The cost of medical care has increased since the law was passed, however there is no evidence that these increases are a result of the law. Costs increased before the law was passed. Medical insurance premiums have increased at half the rate of increases in the decade immediately before the law went into effect, and at the slowest rate in almost 3 decades.

[SK in CV]

[quote=mixxalot]LOL I’ve worked with tons of Indians in tech work. Made a few good Indian friends but many are rude and racist at least based on my experience. Very tribal mindset to boot and very nepotistic based on my experience over the years.[/quote]

wow. just the same as American white people. Amazing.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]
SK, why don’t you leave “border crossing” and your other racist comments out of this discussion? The “border crossing” situation will either get fixed …. or it won’t, but we won’t know until after “We, the People” have spoken. They’re going to be speaking loud and clear in your border state (AZ) as well, so stay tuned.[/quote]

LOL! it’s going to get fixed? With a wall? By a president with a rodent on his head?

[Author]

Posts