Trump ends 1st year with lowest average approval rating

Gilligan

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Sapidus said:
Because the GOP did every thing they could to ensure that would happen

Remember how many states refused to set up their own programs.

Not to mention :

"When the ACA was rolled out, telling insurance companies that they had to insure anybody who signed up, regardless of previous conditions or sickness, everybody realized that the insurance companies would probably lose money in the first decade or so, until previously-uninsured-but-sick people got into the system, got better, and things evened out.
To get the insurance companies to go along with this danger of losing money, the ACA promised to make them whole for any losses in any of the first decade's years. At the end of each fiscal year, the insurance companies merely had to document their losses, and the government would reimburse them out of ACA funds provided for by the law.
Y
The possibility of their losing money was referred to as the "risk corridor," and the ACA explicitly filled those risk corridors with a guarantee of making the insurance companies, at the very least, whole.
And then something happened. As The New York Times noted on December 9, 2015, "A little-noticed health care provision slipped into a giant spending law last year has tangled up the Obama administration, sent tremors through health insurance markets and rattled confidence in the durability of President Obama’s signature health law."
Rubio and a number of other Republicans had succeeded in gutting the risk corridors. The result was that, just in 2015, end-of-fiscal-year risk corridor payments to insurance companies that were supposed to total around $2.9 billion were only reimbursed, according to Rubio himself quoted in the Times, to the tune of around $400 million. Rubio bragged that he'd "saved taxpayers $2.5 billion."
And, indeed, he had. But the insurance companies were thrown into a crisis. And, with Republicans in Congress absolutely refusing to re-fund the risk corridors, that crisis would get worse as time went on, at least over a period of a few years."


https://www.salon.com/2017/03/22/ho...e-long-before-trump-came-into-office_partner/
Click to expand...

Salon. Lmao. Republicans sabotaged nothing. Barrycare was designed to fail. Barry tried to prop it up with illegal subsidy payments to insurance companies.
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Sapidus said:
That's great. Which of Trumps policies have gone into effect and caused this?
Click to expand...

I didn't say they did :shrug:

According to economists, though, he is due credit due to his EXPECTED policies causing greater confidence in consumers and investors.

Notice a trend there? Democrats coming into office as soon as economies tank and then righting them again only to have Republicans screw it up again? Not to good at seeing patterns are you?
Click to expand...

For the most part, I saw good economies tanked, only to be made good again by the next Republican. But, that's actually neither here nor there. You said it was doing fine, and I was merely agreeing with you.

But, if you would like, please provide the specific policies that caused the Democratics to improve the economy.

Meaning we are where we were before Trump got into a pissing contest With North Korea. It's pretty easy to discern
Click to expand...

Not really. Clinton gave NK nuclear reactors, and Obama oversaw NK building nukes and testing them.

Under Trump, NK is at the bargaining table and not being given more stuff. I'd say we're better off.

Which is what I did. Having less people paying into the pool will make other peoples premiums go up. Again This is pretty simple stuff and after 10 years of discussion you would think it would be easy to grasp. I never wavered in my position or statements.
Click to expand...

Actually, you said the mandate did not change someone else's premiums, and then you said it did. That was the point I was asking you to clarify.

It appears you did - you just said you were wrong when you said it would not change someone else's premiums.

I would say that if we could charge based on the risk tables, like we do for car insurance, most people's premiums would go down, some would go up. Equality sucks sometimes.

However, if your assertion were true that the mandate would lower premiums, premiums would not have skyrocketed.
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Sapidus said:
Because the GOP did every thing they could to ensure that would happen

Remember how many states refused to set up their own programs.
Click to expand...

So, you're saying we had an incompetent Democratic-controlled Congress and President that didn't know what the hell they were doing, and totally screwed the pooch in the way they worked to pass the law, built the law, and implemented the law?
 
Hijinx

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
This_person said:
I didn't say they did :shrug:

According to economists, though, he is due credit due to his EXPECTED policies causing greater confidence in consumers and investors.



For the most part, I saw good economies tanked, only to be made good again by the next Republican. But, that's actually neither here nor there. You said it was doing fine, and I was merely agreeing with you.

But, if you would like, please provide the specific policies that caused the Democratics to improve the economy.



Not really. Clinton gave NK nuclear reactors, and Obama oversaw NK building nukes and testing them.

Under Trump, NK is at the bargaining table and not being given more stuff. I'd say we're better off.



Actually, you said the mandate did not change someone else's premiums, and then you said it did. That was the point I was asking you to clarify.

It appears you did - you just said you were wrong when you said it would not change someone else's premiums.

I would say that if we could charge based on the risk tables, like we do for car insurance, most people's premiums would go down, some would go up. Equality sucks sometimes.

However, if your assertion were true that the mandate would lower premiums, premiums would not have skyrocketed.
Click to expand...

Sapidus has been given facts about Obamalamadingdong over and over in this forum and he just ignores facts and goes on shoveling sh1t.
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Sapidus said:
"When the ACA was rolled out, telling insurance companies that they had to insure anybody who signed up, regardless of previous conditions or sickness, everybody realized that the insurance companies would probably lose money in the first decade or so, until previously-uninsured-but-sick people got into the system, got better, and things evened out.
To get the insurance companies to go along with this danger of losing money, the ACA promised to make them whole for any losses in any of the first decade's years. At the end of each fiscal year, the insurance companies merely had to document their losses, and the government would reimburse them out of ACA funds provided for by the law.

The possibility of their losing money was referred to as the "risk corridor," and the ACA explicitly filled those risk corridors with a guarantee of making the insurance companies, at the very least, whole.
And then something happened. As The New York Times noted on December 9, 2015, "A little-noticed health care provision slipped into a giant spending law last year has tangled up the Obama administration, sent tremors through health insurance markets and rattled confidence in the durability of President Obama’s signature health law."
Rubio and a number of other Republicans had succeeded in gutting the risk corridors. The result was that, just in 2015, end-of-fiscal-year risk corridor payments to insurance companies that were supposed to total around $2.9 billion were only reimbursed, according to Rubio himself quoted in the Times, to the tune of around $400 million. Rubio bragged that he'd "saved taxpayers $2.5 billion."
And, indeed, he had. But the insurance companies were thrown into a crisis. And, with Republicans in Congress absolutely refusing to re-fund the risk corridors, that crisis would get worse as time went on, at least over a period of a few years."
Click to expand...

So, Salon is saying here, the law might have worked after 14 years of overpayment (since payments started 4 years before the law actually went into effect, and they're saying it would be another 10 years for it to work).

I'll ask again - where in the Constitution is the federal government tasked to provide health insurance?
 
Hank

Hank

my war
GURPS said:
you have nothing so you attempt insults



you really should just quit posting
Click to expand...

Serious? You go around calling people "short bus", "sugar tits", "mewling quims" and whatever new word you learn for the month... Are those not insults?
 
Hank

Hank

my war
Bird Dog said:
Speaking of “ mewling quims”...........
Click to expand...

Your love affair with me is flattering, but I am not interested. Sorry!

You follow my every post, it is really cute! In your How to be a Catholic Handbook, do they promote trolling & name calling?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top