I want to vote for Trump, but

Yes; I had my tonsils taken out when still a toddler, with ether as the anesthetic. Horrible gassy smell, long-time sore throat afterward, and complications, probably from an infection. Those days of few antibiotics were not very pleasant; I dread a return to those times with all the antibiotic resistance developing.

A good argument against pure capitalism is the indifference of the large drug companies to develop anything that will not bring maximum profit. Even enabled under medical insurance, they seem unwilling to produce with maximum effectiveness, choosing to focus instead on conditions that are chronic.

MGM means maternal grandmother; PGF means paternal grandfather, DM means dear mother, DF means dear father, etc etc. Pretty standard internet abbreviations. Just go to Google, type any acronym you don't get, and "def" and a list of definition sources will come up. The correct ones are only listed in the Urban Dictionary for many things you see on the internet.

 

Talking about expense, people with serious inheritable genetic conditions should limit their reproduction to one or two children, but I have seen more than one set of such parents irresponsibly do the direct opposite and deliberately have six or eight. This is imposing great expense on the rest of us in both school taxes and medical insurance costs, not to mention, in some cases, SSI disability payments for the lifetime of each child...and in some cases institutional charges per child of up to $60,000 or so a year...and I have seen mental health treatments that can easily reach $120,000 or so each. IMO there should be some sort of economic consequence for irresponsibility like this...or, at least, a way to transfer the expenses over to the anti-contraception crowd. Free long term, implantable or IUD contraception would almost eliminate young mentally retarded people, who almost never have developed essential child care skills, from having children too young, and would also help prevent drug-addicted people from having children while still in the throes of drug use which can impair their unborn.

The lack of free, accessible, long-term contraception for such people is a national scandal. The system hides behind the "lack of informed consent" issue for people that are too thinking impaired or mentally ill to be able to give informed consent, and it does not seem to be a priority of our MHMR agencies to provide the necessary legal advocacy to accomplish this.

Even worse, the clumping of people with varying MH, MR, and physical heritable medical problems in the same facilities without providing birth control leads to some of them reproducing with each other, producing offspring either carrying or actively suffering from several impairments at the same time--all hereditary. Even if the child appears normal, they have the dysfunctional pregnancy and early childhood to endure, even if the system finally rescues them from their incompetent parents.

The absolute worst is people who have grown up on SSI choosing to have children on welfare and hoping those children will also inherit their parents' disabilities so that they, too, can receive SSI payments...at everyone else's expense. This sort of thing has a tendency to increase geometrically and never end.

 

I seldom run into posters using terms I need a dictionary for. Thanks for that tip.

I wish I was a true expert on drugs, drug making companies or drug related topics. I take around 7 daily too. I have to look up their purpose from time to time.

I think at times that if the Feds really wanted to make a difference, they would have a Federal department to do what you asked be done. At least when the Feds make science available. it is available to all who can afford it.

As it is, the Feds meddle in drugs. Running up costs by the billions of dollars. So if the Feds wanted to help citizens, rather than be a block to drugs, it would assume the duty of research until developed and release this so drug companies did not need to do research.

 

Frankly, for the most of my life, health problems was not one of my problems.

I do realize a lot of people simply can't help themselves. I sold a mobile home to a woman that lives off the goverment. Talking to a mentally disabled woman as she is, was very trying. I worked hard to deliver her a place to live with what resources she had. The last time I spoke to her, i told her never again. I got sick of her way of treating people. And she trusted some crook as to things to do to the mobile home who took her money from her for poor work and then I got the blame over the condition.

We in CA use careful forms to make sure buyers know precisely what is true, what is false and what property is all about. We bend over backwards to make sure they understand.

Anyway, she told me she has collected from government since being a teen. Her mother seems to keep her upset all the time. She used to bend my ear with stories of her being raped and deceived by people she ran into previously. I wager she bad mouths me. And I busted my tail to make sure she was not deceived. I told her the so called woman remodeler was not trusted. She got angry at me and lost as she told me, about $50,000, I was harassed over my warning her not to trust that shark of a remodeler. Her mother had the money and it was her moms cash that got lost.

 

Quite simply put, you've got the facts wrong. The GOP was more than willing to pass a law that said people with pre existing conditions can't be discriminated against - but that was wrapped into so many other unpopular things in obamacare. Many states have refused to implement obamacare becauze the states wouldn't be able to comply without a massive increase in staye taxes. Quite simply put,these poor states couldn't afford it.

And there was never a state of affairs where you'd be left out on the street to die because you couldn't pay in cash up front for surgery. So your whole post is strawmanish.

 

the purpose of
Insurance is to cover you for infrequent but large risks
What is the point of lower premiums With the proviso that your policy can be cancelled if you get sick?

Rates are and co pays are dependent upon policy term.... Lower rates
Plans mean higher co pays
Also rates are related to what is covered.. And the aca mandates certain minimum coverages, like no exclusion or cancelation for pre existing condition

Not sure how old you are, but the cost of life insurance changes dramatically based on your age
The medical insurance risks of older folks are alsohigher... Esp with pre exsying conditions
If an insurance company is allowed to only cover young and healthy people and cancel them if they get sick
... yeah they can charge much lower premiums.... But then the cost of insurance for high risk people becomes largely unaffordable
That is one reason employer based insurance was good... It forced insurance companies to cover all employees

 

Yes; many learn to avoid working with such people. The law is often all in their favor and that includes the confidentiality laws, which make professionals unable to defend themselves from libel.

The only time law does not work in the favor of such populations is with the ultra wealthy, who rip them off on a regular basis when a more competent spouse dies leaving an estate, or a situation such as Katrina develops, when the wealthy often make out in job lots using tax laws to purchase property that belonged to now- indigents for pennies on the dollar...or with various complex mortgage equity financial schemes that result in the loss of valuable property that had been previously paid for..

 

I do not remember any such gop proposal before the aca

Fact is that both on a national and state level there have been innumerable opportunities to accomlish what you claim.. Where is the evidence they DID DO SO, OR EVEN TRIED.

 

I read that and read it to make sure I understood.

Frankly I can't see why you said what you said.

Why don't you provide me with some rational reason to agree with you?

Bashing the rich is a cottage industry in this country. But I have met some and greatly admired what they achieved.

 

If people paid for insurance that had in the contact it could be cancelled, lord help those very dumb people.

 

How do you SIMPLY Federally, unfundedly mandate that pre existing conditions no longer apply? OF course it was wrapped.

Absolute RUBBISH. There was the entire spans of history before Obamacare that you would be left out on the street to die. AGAIN, an ER visit to STABILIZE you does ZERO, for chronic conditions. And without meds, you are DEAD.


And when the hell did right wingers get so enamored with unfunded federal mandates?

 

Trump.Sr and Obi wan are our only hopes.I know a lot about Crooked Hillary and Crazy Bernie.

 

If you do not like any of the three candidates hear is another one to consider Gary Johnson of the Libertarian party http://www.lp.org/ Mr.Johnson and Mr.Trump want to protect our rights unlike those two Clowns Crooked Hillary and Crazy Bernie.

 

Great story. Glad you are alive.

There is federal reg/law that require hospitals/doctors to treat people who have life threatening circumstance. Thanks for sharing your story, how have you survived without healthcare until the recent Obamacare takeover? We all better hope that the job status in our country picks up soon or other people's money won't be available to pay for other people's living expenses.

 

what makes your comments so stupid? of course Hildabeast is not going to come out and say she wants a complete gun ban. She wants to be in office

so she incrementally bans guns. its what the Bannerrhoid movement does

 

Does she REALLY want to ban sex too? What else does she have planned that only cons can hear?

 

By getting a prescription for a year. Getting meds for 10 per three months and luck. When I started dying, I finally got medicaide. Yeah, you could get patched at the ER, but no meds, so death.

 

Being wealthy only gives one the capacity to benefit from laws favoring the wealthy--not all do; but--and Trump is an example of this--many will in order to remain on par with their competition. A few, like Trump, though, see how much of this eventually harms the country as a whole. I am not "rich bashing" here; just mentioning how things have been rigged in favor of the wealthy. No one person or even present group can be wholly blamed for it, as it is a legal state that has evolved over time, and even, in some cases, undoubtedly certain key portions of it have been inherited from the common law of England.

Call your local county and find out what happens to real estate when the owners are unable to pay their taxes. After a certain length of time, it is put up for sheriff's sale, where sometimes, lacking competing bids, the true value is not honored and whole estates can be picked up for just the taxes due. In one county close to me, at least, no advocate for a property owner can intervene unless they are a real estate attorney--which very, very few people unable to pay their own taxes can afford. That rule essentially means if a property owner has cognitive or mental health limitations and no money for attorney's fees they're on their own against a system whose procedures they do not begin to understand.

The above is one of the more obvious ways the laws are tilted so that value goes rolling into the laps of the wealthy. Over the years, many, many similar scenarios have been built into our laws which also profit the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. This is the type of thing Trump has been talking about---systemic patterns of discrimination against the non-wealthy in how financial matters are handled in our society, which means that the field of play is not even for everyone.

Surely you have heard of members of the Reserves and Guard called up who therefore were not able to pay their Home Owner Association fees in Texas? In Texas, a HOA call sell the home of anyone that does not pay their HOA fees, and the HOA for at least one soldier called to duty actually had his house sold on him while he was deployed. There was a ruckus about that one particular incident and possibly the right thing was eventually done there, but in how many other, more obscure, cases have similar things happened and not been undone?

Then there are the big cities buying up the water rights to areas far from themselves, to the detriment of people living or to live in those areas, who frequently purchase land, unaware that they have no rights to the water under it.

Then, of course, there is the financial firm that created a special fund so one of its wealthiest members could have its ordinary members purchase shares in a fund that the wealthiest member could "bet" against in some sort of convoluted transaction, thereby essentially stealing the money of the ordinary investors.

I am not in the field of finance, but ask anyone on here that is and they can probably give you other examples, if they will.

 

I happen to be in the field of finance. As to the soldiers, they are subject to the rules of the Soldiers and Sailors relief act. If they inform the creditor, the creditor by law must hold off. HOA by law can put liens on property. Then one has state laws to deal with.

I get your point. But even by saving them the home, with financing, often they lose it shortly after.

People panic when about to lose a home. But blaming the rich, if you are, is not the best thing to say. Think of the neighbors. My experience is that when people drift into foreclosure, the house is not well kept. The exterior goes down the drain and the neighbors wish the house is sold to a person that can afford them.

 

There are of course justifications for the way things are done, but that does not obviate the fact that the wealthy profit at the expense of the non-wealthy.

Finance is an essential service, but it is only a service. In its higher reaches, there is a good deal of money manipulation going on at the expense of the rest of us. It is a rather arcane field, at its higher reaches, and it is easy for the most knowledgeable to cream off a goodly portion of the legitimate earnings of the society as a whole. Those that enrich themselves in this manner have become used to the inordinately high profits, based mainly on money manipulation, and see nothing wrong with what they are doing...but IMO it is both a breach of public trust and invalidates their right to consider themselves a legitimate service.

I am thinking of the excesses of AIG, for one thing, prior to the crash in 2008.

 

You are aware that insurance is a yearly contract
Which insurers are not obligated to renew, or could change premiums and terms

 

I deal with the public. I don't deal with the top. I deal with wholesalers. They don't make the rules. I don't make the rules. The rules for lending comes from Fannie Mae plus Freddie Mac for conventional loans. FHA and VA come under those rules. I don't do the latter two.

AIG got caught up in the losses. They did not have enough insurance ability to ride out the bad market. But they got caught by surprise.

Too bad you have not studied this area of finance. You would learn you have high hurdles at the State level plus now due to Dodd Frank, super high hurdles just to keep a job. It is terrible the things Dodd Frank has done to this wonderful industry. It is my privilege to help people get good loans.

I never have nor will respect bad lenders.

- - - Updated - - -

Some of it is annual. But in general you are quite correct.

 

Most of what AIG lost was lost out of London, I believe, under special but questionable English laws of some sort, ---and by one particular rather young trader who was, I believe, being mentored by some sort of AIG evil genius who managed to golden parachute himself out of harm's way just before everything went bust.

I remember reading reams of articles and struggling for weeks trying to figure out what happened, but that is all I can now remember, and the computer I save those files on has been recycled.

 

While I understand why the market crashed, since it fell apart here too, I am not clear what happened to AIG vis a vis England. A very good book by Wallison explains it very well.

At my level, my firm that is, we did not see it coming at all. We were too wrapped up helping people get loans. Suddenly all heck broke loose. A wholesaler for Lehman Brothers was talking to me like on a Monday ?? all seemed well. The next day they stopped answering the phones. Gone like a puff of smoke. Actually they did have some fairly decent subprime loans. But when Lehman fell away, their subsidiaries also fell too.

[video=youtube;vNZ6Wj7Lc8M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNZ6Wj7Lc8M[/video]

 

No, hospitals were not in recent years allowed to refuse life saving services. ACA didn't change that, it just dramatically and unjustly shifted the burden of the expense.