Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Selling across state lines doesn't mean all companies will offer in all states. Won't they still have to comply with individual state insurance agency regulations?
Apparently, not. I think the goal is to remove local insurance regulatory control. We've already got out-of-state companies selling in WI - but they have to comply w/WI laws. I think "selling across state lines" is more deregulation it would appear, wherein you buy a policy from an out-of-state insurer but you cannot complain to your local insurance commissioner if the insurer misbehaves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bungalowdweller
The country is BANKRUPT and millions of Democrats have joined with Independents and Republicans to try something else. We need a return to sound money principles. We can't continue to earn NOTHING on our retirement savings. Give it a rest.
Do you seriously believe this? You clearly don't understand how the GOP operates - and always has operated. THEY LOVE DEBT - i.e., using OUR money to pay themselves.
Trump LOVES debt - because he DOESN'T PAY IT BACK. US banks don't lend to him for a reason.
Do you call borrowing money to give tax incentives without attendant increases in revenue, thus running up the debt, sound money principles? Happened w/Reagan, happened w/Bush II, will happen again.
Every legitimate analysis of Trump's "plan" says the debt will skyrocket b/c the revenue they "expect" won't be there.
As sure as you know your own name, I guarantee you the debt will balloon, the rich will get richer, little guy will pay for by further decimation of our social programs (entitlements like SS/Medicare - that's you), job losses & decreased tax revenues - and the rich won't know a thing about it - because, once again, they've robbed the Treasury.
"Sound money principles" only apply when the Democrats are in office.
Last edited by Ariadne22; 12-01-2016 at 03:29 PM..
Ohhhhh, I get it. Because he didn't say something, that actually means he's "thinking" it. Gotcha. Damn, you Democrats sure is smart.
Perhaps the question isn't what Trump will initiate regarding SS, perhaps it is will he veto what leaders in congress initiate and approve regarding SS and Medicare.
Do you think he will veto Ryan and McConnell passed legislation?
Your perspective as to why he appointed Price a strong advocate of cutting these programs as his executive branch go to guy?
Those are the questions many perhaps not all consider worthy of pondering absent any need to quote Trump.
It is interesting that on the Trump/Pence web sight under positions there is no mention of SS, Medicare etc. Might help many to feel more comfortable if there was a stated current position:
This is the transition web site, couldn't find positions but maybe I missed them. If someone finds current updated position statements by Trump on SS and Medicare please link. https://www.greatagain.gov/
Is there another more current web site? I shall check and if I find will link. If anyone else has please link.
It is interesting that on the Trump/Pence web sight under positions there is no mention of SS, Medicare etc. Might help many to feel more comfortable if there was a stated current position:
This is the transition web site, couldn't find positions but maybe I missed them. If someone finds current updated position statements by Trump on SS and Medicare please link. https://www.greatagain.gov/
Is there another more current web site? I shall check and if I find will link. If anyone else has please link.
nope, just this: "Modernize Medicare, so that it will be ready for the challenges with the coming retirement of the Baby Boom generation – and beyond"https://www.greatagain.gov/policy/healthcare.html
I guess you can interpret 'modernize' any way you want but given his choice for HHS secretary it's pretty clear that it doesn't bode well for medicare recipients.
nope, just this: "Modernize Medicare, so that it will be ready for the challenges with the coming retirement of the Baby Boom generation – and beyond"https://www.greatagain.gov/policy/healthcare.html
I guess you can interpret 'modernize' any way you want but given his choice for HHS secretary it's pretty clear that it doesn't bode well for medicare recipients.
Thanks, not sure how I missed this page. It does address the issue of state regulation when insurance is sold over state lines:
Quote:
A Trump Administration will work with Congress to repeal the ACA and replace it with a solution that includes Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), and returns the historic role in regulating health insurance to the States.*
Congressional Republicans are setting up their own, self-imposed deadline to make good on their vow to replace the Affordable Care Act. With buy-in from Donald Trump’s transition team, GOP leaders on both sides of the Capitol are coalescing around a plan to vote to repeal the law in early 2017 — but delay the effective date for that repeal for as long as three years.
They’re crossing their fingers that the delay will help them get their own house in order, as well as pressure a handful of Senate Democrats — who would likely be needed to pass replacement legislation — to come onboard before the clock runs out and 20 million Americans lose their health insurance. The idea is to satisfy conservative critics who want President Barack Obama’s signature initiative gone now, but reassure Americans that Republicans won’t upend the entire health care system without a viable alternative that preserves the law’s popular provisions.
That gives them three years to stop calling the ACA, Obamacare and for them to lower the threshold of their generated anger against and who knows they may just call it the ACA and let it continue and act as if they did something under Trump. NC is doing that with Common Core, sorta funny if you have followed it.
Thanks, not sure how I missed this page. It does address the issue of state regulation when insurance is sold over state lines:
Quote:
A Trump Administration will work with Congress to repeal the ACA and replace it with a solution that includes Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), and returns the historic role in regulating health insurance to the States.*
I don't think this is referencing across state lines. My understanding of "across state lines" is if you live in NC, you should be able to buy health insurance from any insurer whether or not regulated by the state in which you live.
Which begs the question, to whom do you complain with your California insurer isn't delivering benefits for you, a NC resident?
Right now health insurance availability - even before the ACA - was dictated by where you lived. One of the issues is provider networks - long a primary cost-control measure before the ACA. Unless the health insurers adopt the Medigap approach of "any" Medicare doctor - regardless of location.
I've never heard any Republican anywhere describe how health insurance would "work" if "bought across state lines." For myself, I want local control. We've got out-of-state insurers selling Medigaps here who are registered with the WI OIC. If there is a problem, I've got a local regulatory agency.
The big issue with "across state lines" - is who regulates? Again, in WI, what's my recourse when the company isn't regulated by my state?
Millennials are the LARGEST generation in American history. They have surpassed Boomers, 75 million to 74 million alive today. They are also the largest generation in the current American workforce and will continue to be for at least the next 20 years.
And Generation Z, or the Plurals, make up 25 percent of the US population and is growing.
The rest of your premise may be correct, but start from a factual place.
8 years from now, the oldest Millennials will be 45 and the youngest will be 20 (I use the S&H definitions). The head count of Millennials is heavy at the head end with a declining tail. It will be "peak payroll tax" and downhill from there. Meanwhile, many Boomers and most of X will still be drawing. Meanwhile, how do you expect a Millennial who is 45 with kids in college, a mortgage and worries about personal retirement funding to feel about the by then extreme cut out of the paycheck to fund the increasingly aging population.
The Lexington Herald-Leader, a prominent Kentucky newspaper, reports in an interesting article that the state's counties with the highest rates of Medicaid usage are also the ones whose citizens voted for candidates who, including Trump and their Congressman, who vowed to decimate the program.
Some of the very citizens who are most dependent on healthcare supplied by Medicaid or the state's own version of Obamacare called "Kynect," admit they voted for Trump and Kentucky Governor-elect Bevins, who both campaigned on a platform of eliminating government-supported healthcare. Asked by a reporter why she would do this, a Medicaid recipient who can't afford necessary blood tests to control her hyperthyroid without government aid replied, "I'm just a die-hard Republican." She's also depends on a county job for what salary she does make as a part-time college student raising a 7-year-old who also gets government healthcare.
According to the article, "... a newspaper prominent in Southeastern Kentucky's largest-circulation newspaper, the Three Forks Tradition in Beattyville, did not say much about Kynect ahead of the election. Instead, its editorials roasted Obama and Hillary Clinton, gay marriage, Islam, 'liberal race peddlers,' 'liberal media,' black criminals and 'the radical Black Lives Matter movement.'"
"The people I talk to, health care wasn't even mentioned," said Gary Cornett, chairman of the Owsley County Republican Party. "In Southeast Kentucky, the social issues are important. We're a small, traditional, tight-knit community, and there are certain ways we do things."
Apparently those ways don't include logic and self-preservation.
The Alt-Right toxin consumed them. Irony - many on the so called Alt-Right lament the so called "social justice warriors." But what exactly is the diametrically opposed answer to the SJW? Nothing more than an equally emotion driven, illogical archetype who hates all things the supposed "SJWs" have inspired, whether or not such things have had a material impact on their own individual existence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
