US Politics

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/02/health/christian-health-care-insurance.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

I didn't know this, but even Obama left some free competitive healthcare products in the market, out of the reach of nasty and unnecessary regulators.

More than one million Americans, struggling to cope with the rising cost of health insurance, have joined such groups, attracted by prices that are far lower than the premiums for policies that must meet strict requirements, like guaranteed coverage for pre-existing conditions, established by the Affordable Care Act. The groups say they permit people of a common religious or ethical belief to share medical costs, and many were grandfathered in under the federal health care law mainly through a religious exemption.

The main requirement for membership is adherence to a Christian lifestyle. And the alternative sharing plans keep flourishing, especially now that the Trump administration has relaxed rules to permit alternatives to the A.C.A. that don’t provide such generous coverage.


Even though premiums in the A.C.A. market have stabilized, critics of the law insist people need alternatives. “That’s the real driver behind the growth,” said Dr. Dave Weldon, a former Republican congressman from Florida who is president of the Alliance of Health Care Sharing Ministries, which represents the two largest groups.
Click to expand...

The market works, and regulations jack up prices for consumers!

These Christian nonprofit groups offer far lower rates because they are not classified as insurance and are under no legal obligation to pay medical claims. They generally decline to cover people with pre-existing illnesses. They can set limits on how much their members will pay, and they can legally refuse to cover treatments for specialties like mental health.

“Just trust God,” the nonprofit group, Samaritan Ministries, in Peoria, Ill., said in a statement about its coverage, and advises its members that “there is no coverage, no guarantee of payment.”

The Houston Chronicle featured one couple who was left with more than $100,000 in unpaid medical bills. Trinity said most members are satisfied with its services.

Families who have joined the groups recount winding up with medical bills not covered by the ministries, with no legal way to appeal decisions to reject coverage for care.
Click to expand...

However, big (state) govt is once again inserting its greedy tentacles into these voluntary transactions :(

But state regulators in New Hampshire, Colorado and Texas are beginning to question some of the ministries’ aggressive marketing tactics, often using call centers, and said in some cases people who joined them were misled or did not understand how little coverage they would receive if they or a family member had a catastrophic illness.
Click to expand...

In conclusion:
zqarcrz33d841.png
 
Good thread





The more I read the more I think the most simplistic views of the world - people who are openly evil are evil in every possible way, everything is a conspiracy - are correct. There is no need for nuanced understanding, the worst possible explanation is right, and never explain by incompetence what can be explained by malice.
 
berbatrick said:
Good thread





The more I read the more I think the most simplistic views of the world - people who are openly evil are evil in every possible way, everything is a conspiracy - are correct. There is no need for nuanced understanding, the worst possible explanation is right, and never explain by incompetence what can be explained by malice.
Click to expand...


Occam's Razor.
 
berbatrick said:
yup.
this entire story has disappeared, i try to read this stuff but i missed it too - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_Papers
it should be massive news confirming all the theories about how the gtvt sucks and lies!
Click to expand...

it’s why I’m absolutely convinced that Russia have Trump under total control. There’s literally hundreds of examples of evidence that point to it. I‘m more interested in how the CIA are looking to mitigate it in the background without “plotting against the President”. It seems he’s fully aware of it too as each time he makes a move now it’s completely unannounced and blindsides even his own staff.
 
berbatrick said:
The more I read the more I think the most simplistic views of the world - people who are openly evil are evil in every possible way, everything is a conspiracy - are correct. There is no need for nuanced understanding, the worst possible explanation is right, and never explain by incompetence what can be explained by malice.
Click to expand...
I still find that incompetence is a lot more common than malice in bad events big and small. Or even if not incompetence, then lack of sufficient competence. Malice does exist, but even the most malicious person as well as the most benevolent person, don't control all the cards/the whole game. As the saying goes "the enemy gets a vote", and the real world there are actually several people/groups in every situation that get to make their own play.

Even in this story you see Rockefeller trying to influence events, but he doesn't get everything he asks for, not even from the Reagan administration and much less from the Carter administration. We also arrived at the possibility of an October surprise exactly because the rescue operation failed, chance and incompetence rearing their head in again.

Just to note, none of this means that I find anything that Rockefeller/Kissinger were lobbying for at all good or moral. I can understand from the banker's perspective to try his utmost to reinstate the Shah after he foolishly invested so much with him, rather than just take the loss sitting down. But it is also any good government official's duty to tell the esteemed Mr. Rockefeller to f* off.
 
Pexbo said:
it’s why I’m absolutely convinced that Russia have Trump under total control. There’s literally hundreds of examples of evidence that point to it. I‘m more interested in how the CIA are looking to mitigate it in the background without “plotting against the President”. It seems he’s fully aware of it too as each time he makes a move now it’s completely unannounced and blindsides even his own staff.
Click to expand...

I'm shocked :eek:



err. not really.
 
MTF said:
I still find that incompetence is a lot more common than malice in bad events big and small. Or even if not incompetence, then lack of sufficient competence. Malice does exist, but even the most malicious person as well as the most benevolent person, don't control all the cards/the whole game. As the saying goes "the enemy gets a vote", and the real world there are actually several people/groups in every situation that get to make their own play.

Even in this story you see Rockefeller trying to influence events, but he doesn't get everything he asks for, not even from the Reagan administration and much less from the Carter administration. We also arrived at the possibility of an October surprise exactly because the rescue operation failed, chance and incompetence rearing their head in again.

Just to note, none of this means that I find anything that Rockefeller/Kissinger were lobbying for at all good or moral. I can understand from the banker's perspective to try his utmost to reinstate the Shah after he foolishly invested so much with him, rather than just take the loss sitting down. But it is also any good government official's duty to tell the esteemed Mr. Rockefeller to f* off.
Click to expand...

I came to this differently, from Reagan's election rather than Rockerfeller's interference.
"Reagan sabotaged the negotiations" is the type of comment you'll see under Chomsky videos, usually with dubious sourcing. (Similar - Nixon sabotaged Paris, CIA distributed drugs, etc.) I never knew what to make of them, thinking I should trust the better sourced ones (Nixon-Paris had some okish sourcing) and disregard the conspiracies (Reagan and CIA). But the conspiracies do come true. Reagan is 666, *and* his election was dirty? Too convenient to be true, but here it is.


My breaking point was the Indian Supreme Court which has removed its spine the moment Modi entered office. On theoretical issues where the govt isn't directly involved they're great (they affirmed, 9-0, a right to privacy, and 5-0, decrminalised homosexuality). But a corruption allegation against Modi was dismissed with no explanation, govt policy which seems to violate privacy was passed 4-1. The demolition of a mosque was ruled illegal but in the same judgement, that property was awarded for the building of a temple. (That's been a campaign promise of the ruling party for ~35 years). Many more like that.

So the simpler explanation is that it's not an intellectual debate with inconsistent judges who randomly lose their senses; it's that the nice words on privacy are meant to keep idiots like me happy while on concrete issues the govt has free reign.
 
berbatrick said:
I came to this differently, from Reagan's election rather than Rockerfeller's interference.
"Reagan sabotaged the negotiations" is the type of comment you'll see under Chomsky videos, usually with dubious sourcing. (Similar - Nixon sabotaged Paris, CIA distributed drugs, etc.) I never knew what to make of them, thinking I should trust the better sourced ones (Nixon-Paris had some okish sourcing) and disregard the conspiracies (Reagan and CIA). But the conspiracies do come true. Reagan is 666, *and* his election was dirty? Too convenient to be true, but here it is.
Click to expand...

Nixon sabotaging Paris and the CIA distributing drugs are just historical fact.
 
berbatrick said:
I came to this differently, from Reagan's election rather than Rockerfeller's interference.
"Reagan sabotaged the negotiations" is the type of comment you'll see under Chomsky videos, usually with dubious sourcing. (Similar - Nixon sabotaged Paris, CIA distributed drugs, etc.) I never knew what to make of them, thinking I should trust the better sourced ones (Nixon-Paris had some okish sourcing) and disregard the conspiracies (Reagan and CIA). But the conspiracies do come true. Reagan is 666, *and* his election was dirty? Too convenient to be true, but here it is.
Click to expand...

I haven’t had a chance to read up on this latest release, but the October Surprise has been a ‘respectable’ conspiracy theory for quite a while, with well-established publishers having published stuff on it by credible people like Gary Sick.
 
MTF said:
I still find that incompetence is a lot more common than malice in bad events big and small. Or even if not incompetence, then lack of sufficient competence. Malice does exist, but even the most malicious person as well as the most benevolent person, don't control all the cards/the whole game. As the saying goes "the enemy gets a vote", and the real world there are actually several people/groups in every situation that get to make their own play.

Even in this story you see Rockefeller trying to influence events, but he doesn't get everything he asks for, not even from the Reagan administration and much less from the Carter administration. We also arrived at the possibility of an October surprise exactly because the rescue operation failed, chance and incompetence rearing their head in again.

Just to note, none of this means that I find anything that Rockefeller/Kissinger were lobbying for at all good or moral. I can understand from the banker's perspective to try his utmost to reinstate the Shah after he foolishly invested so much with him, rather than just take the loss sitting down. But it is also any good government official's duty to tell the esteemed Mr. Rockefeller to f* off.
Click to expand...

I find that short term profit motivated self-interest is far more common in the worst scenarios than incompetence
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
I find that short term profit motivated self-interest is far more common in the worst scenarios than incompetence
Click to expand...

That’s the thing, it’s not the actual billionaires that are always the problem, it’s the people who are trying to become millionaires and billionaires or who are making decisions purely on behalf of their company or share holders that are more likely to make decisions that have grave impacts on the environment or the population.
 
Pexbo said:
That’s the thing, it’s not the actual billionaires that are always the problem, it’s the people who are trying to become millionaires and billionaires or who are making decisions purely on behalf of their company or share holders that are more likely to make decisions that have grave impacts on the environment or the population.
Click to expand...
Agree but also this, really this!


 
Sweet Square said:
Agree but also this, really this!


Click to expand...

Or a thousand dollars per American
The government could lend this and people pay it back through taxes over let's say 5 years
$200 a year
Less than a dollar a day
That sounds a bit more realistic and achievable than taking everything off three people and what with it being for everybody's future seems reasonably fair
About 50 cents a day to save the future... I mean if people won't chip in that then they won't change the behaviours about consumption we need everybody to change anyway
 
Eboue said:
yes it is and you sounds daft claiming its not
Click to expand...

So every decision that has ever negatively impacted the world was made by a billionaire?




Yes.

meme_kid.jpg
 
berbatrick said:
I know about Paris, but is there sources about the CIA?
Click to expand...

There was a series of news reports a long time ago.

https://web.archive.org/web/19961220020436/http://www.sjmercury.com/drugs/stories.htm

The US government also admitted giving drugs traffickers large sums of cash supposedly to smuggle humanitarian supplies into Nicaragua.

There’s no incontrovertible evidence that the CIA directly distributed drugs, but lots of indicators. Plus is you look at how utterly out of control the CIA were back then, it isn’t even in the top 20 most outrageous things they were involved in.
 
Kentonio said:
The US government also admitted giving drugs traffickers large sums of cash supposedly to smuggle humanitarian supplies into Nicaragua.

There’s no incontrovertible evidence that the CIA directly distributed drugs, but lots of indicators. Plus is you look at how utterly out of control the CIA were back then, it isn’t even in the top 20 most outrageous things they were involved in.
Click to expand...
The whole Iran-Contra thing is just one big, corrupt mess. Always amazes me how the GOP has given messiah status to Reagan when he had that stuff going on.

The US Navy & Special Ops had direct military involvement in that conflict in Nicaragua as well. My dad's ship took them down there, dropped them off at night, then sailed over the horizon. Came back in after several nights and picked them up after their op was complete. Rinse - repeat.
 
Kinsella said:
Gates and Buffett have pledged to give the majority of their wealth away to philanthropic causes.
Click to expand...
I think the tweet is demonstrating that the wealth of merely three people can supposedly fund the solution to the climate crisis — not to suggest to take all their money. I’d go on to guess that those three were chosen because they’re the most famous billionaires.
 
Florida Man said:
I think the tweet is demonstrating that the wealth of merely three people can supposedly fund the solution to the climate crisis — not to suggest to take all their money. I’d go on to guess that those three were chosen because they’re the most famous billionaires.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. It may also demonstrate that an antipathy towards the wealthy comes ahead of a concern for a particular cause.
 
Kinsella said:
Perhaps. It may also demonstrate that an antipathy towards the wealthy comes ahead of a concern for a particular cause.
Click to expand...
The antipathy is there because they’re linked, at least if you subscribe to the idea that wealth inequality is a major driver in a lack of funds for things like climate change solutions. And we’re not talking about normal wealthy either. This is the billionaire class we’re talking about. Even though the term is often used, a billion dollars is an unimaginable amount of money.

Anywho I think the tweet could have illustrated this in a better way as to bring perspective without indirectly suggesting we drain all three of their wealth. I did a look at the Forbes 400. Literally and I mean literally if the top 300 billionaires donated $1billion of their wealth to climate change, they’d still be billionaires! (This might actually fuel more antipathy)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.