Jump to content
Check your account email address ×

jtssrx

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    15,705

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

 Content Type 

Posts posted by jtssrx

    The Clinton murders

    in Current Events

    Posted · Edited by jtssrx

    1 hour ago, Mileage Psycho said:

    70 million dollars and all they could find was a blow job :frech::lol:

    He purgered himself to congress. No one cared that she blew him they cared that he lied about it. 

    Brexit voters' remorse as result sinks in

    in Current Events

    Posted

    14 hours ago, Mileage Psycho said:

    You ask if I'm a socialist when I bring up the locales of Britain that voted to leave the EU yet they still want the funding that they received from EU, I don't get the correlation on how that would make me a socialist? 

    Although I am not a flat earther such as yourself and I do think that both the left and right have good ideas and bad ideas, I have never supported a socialist agenda or supported a socialist candidate, you need to look at some of the Sanders supporters here and and at TBP for socialist supporters.

    I've yet to see you post anything supportive of the right. 

     

    Brexit voters' remorse as result sinks in

    in Current Events

    Posted · Edited by jtssrx

    2 hours ago, Mileage Psycho said:

    I wonder if they are really going to go through with it as it was not a binding referendum, there is a huge petition going around to have another vote, and German Chancellor Merkel has said there is no need to rush Britain into a quick divorce.

    You have to love the areas of England that favored the exit and ar are now demanding that London still provides them with the funds they were receiving from the EU LOL

     

     

     

    Are you a socialist? You support every leftist socialist agebda. You are like a parrot for socialism 

    SMOKING GUN: Hillary Did Not Turn Over Email Showing She Hid Information

    in Current Events

    Posted

    3 hours ago, Mainecat said:

    No one cares about this. Except right wing vomit media. I can tell what yesterdays spew was by the next days topics here

    This women used her position as Secretary of State to enrich herself and the Clinton foundation. Your partisan blinders are so strong that you can't allow yourself to call a spade a spade. This email was litterly excluded b cause it is so damming. However Huma made a massive mistake and didn't scrub it. 

     

    The Clintons have gotten away with corruption fir so long that they think they are invincible. This may be the case that takes them down. 

    SMOKING GUN: Hillary Did Not Turn Over Email Showing She Hid Information

    in Current Events

    Posted

     

    SMOKING GUN: Hillary Did Not Turn Over Email Showing She Hid Information

    by PATRICK HOWLEY23 Jun 20161,601

    advertisement

    Hillary Clinton did not turn over an important email about the problems caused by her use of a private email server for classified information.

    Clinton sent an email to her deputy chief of staff stating that she did not want some of her emails to be “accessible,” presumably to Congress or to the State Department itself. That email helped form the basis of a scathing inspector general report that found Clinton violated rules.

    SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

    Now, we know that Clinton did not hand over that email to State Department investigators, proving that Clinton violated her sworn statement that she handed over all of her emails. Her inability to hand over this email could also provide more evidence that she violated the Espionage Act by allowing national defense information to be “lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed” through gross negligence.

    “While this exchange was not part of the approximately 55,000 pages provided to the State Department by former Secretary Clinton, the exchange was included within the set of documents Ms. Abedin provided the department in response to our March 2015 request,” said State Department spokesman John Kirby in a statement to the Associated Press.

    The email in question popped up in an inspector general’s report. Breitbart News reported:

    “In November 2010, Secretary Clinton and her Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations discussed the fact that Secretary Clinton’s emails to Department employees were not being received,” according to the report.

    Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff told her that “we should talk about putting you on state email or releasing your email address to the department so you are not going to spam.”

    Hillary Clinton replied, “Let’s get separate address or device but I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible.”

    Breitbart News has led the media in covering the Clinton email case, including first reporting that Clinton had “Top Secret” classified emails on her private server.

     

    Obamacare Premiums Are Going Up. Again. Now What?

    in Current Events

    Posted · Edited by jtssrx

    2 hours ago, Mainecat said:

    Someone buy you guys a fuckin clue. Healthcare rates go up every year and have for decades.

    No buy yourself a fucking clue. Your guy claimed he was going to save everyone 2500.00 and cover people who can't pay.

     

    you're so uninformed on the topic it's sick yet you act like an authority on the topic. Please stop you're making yourself look stupid oh wait you do that everyday 

     

    dumbfuck

     

     

    Second Amendment

    in Current Events

    Posted

    Why do you think democrats are trying to gun grab when gun deaths compared to many of this things I'll list below pale in comparison comparison 

     

     

    1x1.gif 1x1.gif
    Abortion: 519650
    Heart Disease: 292347
    Cancer: 281570
    Tobacco: 166553
    Obesity: 146091
    Medical Errors: 119658
    Stroke: 63339
    Lower Respiratory Disease: 68022
    Accident (unintentional): 64743
    Hospital Associated Infection: 47111
    Alcohol: 47587
    Diabetes: 36398
    Alzheimer's Disease: 44513
    Influenza/Pneumonia: 26281
    Kidney Failure: 20349
    Blood Infection: 15924
    Suicide: 20354
    Drunk Driving: 16088
    Unintentional Poisoning: 15113
    All Drug Abuse: 11899
    Homicide: 7994
    Prescription Drug Overdose: 7138
    Murder by gun: 5469
    Texting while Driving: 2850
    Pedestrian: 2379
    Drowning: 1863
    Fire Related: 1666
    Malnutrition: 1319
    Domestic Violence: 695
    Smoking in Bed: 371
    Falling out of Bed: 284
    Killed by Falling Tree: 71
    Struck by Lightning: 39
    Mass Shooting  *
       Generic:
       Radical Islamic Terrorism:     		 
    10
    49
    Spontaneous Combustion: 0


     

    Your chance of death is 100%. Are you ready?

    Obamacare Premiums Are Going Up. Again. Now What?

    in Current Events

    Posted

     

    Obamacare Premiums Are Going Up. Again. Now What?

    607

    JUNE 21, 2016 10:17 AM EDT

    a | A

    By

    Megan McArdle

    If you haven’t been following the Obamacare news recently -- and given how much else has been going on, there’s a good chance you haven’t -- then you may have missed the news that insurers' rate-increase requests for 2017 are quite large. A new report from the Kaiser Family Foundation says the cost of the “benchmark” plan (the second-lowest-cost silver plan in a market, which is the price used to calculate subsidies) will go up 10 percent this year, double the rate at which prices increased last year. The lowest-cost silver plans are also seeing substantial hikes. This matters because these are the most frequently purchased plans.

    The usual caveat applies to these preliminary requests: Regulators might not approve them. But that caveat was hauled out last year by the law’s supporters, who seemed to think that this was simply the opening stage of a negotiation in which insurers asked for the stars in the hope of settling on the moon. In fact, regulators approved large rate hikes, and the state of Oregon actually made some insurers raise rates by more than they’d planned. Regulators dislike high insurance premiums, of course, but they also dislike insurance companies suddenly going out of business and leaving their customers without insurance. They are not going to approve rates that they believe will cause insurers to lose large sums of money.

    And thus far, everything we’ve heard from insurers indicates that they have lost large sums of money. Last year, it was possible to believe that this was simply a one-time problem, because the rates for 2016 were the first that had been set with a full year’s worth of data on the new Obamacare markets. Insurers, analysts said soothingly, had initially underpriced, but now they were correcting their mistake, and things would quickly stabilize.

    That has proven to be a false hope. If anything, losses have widened, and rates need an even bigger correction this year. Some of this may be due to the expiration of the temporary risk-adjustment programs, and now the uncertainty over whether the Department of Health and Human Services will be allowed to keep cutting checks for another subsidy program aimed at customers whose family income is under 250 percent of the poverty line (a judge recently ruled that the payments were illegal, but the ruling will be appealed). However, that’s not the whole story here. A big part of it is simply that the insurers cannot make a profit at current prices.

    What does that mean for the future? A few months back I was on a panel with a very smart health-care reporter who said, basically, “Yes, there will be rate hikes, but there is some price at which insurance can be sold profitably, and eventually, insurers will figure out what that price is.” My response was that this isn’t necessarily true. Insurance markets have some interesting features, one of which is that it is quite possible for there to be no price at which insurance can be profitably sold.

    In health insurance markets, this phenomenon is known as the adverse-selection death spiral. Basically, every time the price of insurance goes up, many of the people in the insurance pool who use the least health care decide that it makes more sense to go without the insurance and bear the risk themselves, and they drop their coverage. That means you’re left with the more expensive patients to cover, which means the average cost goes up, which means prices have to go up … and, well, you get the idea. The price the market eventually finds may be so high that very few people want to buy the insurance.

    Now, there are factors weighing against this, most notably the mandate and the subsidies. So far, the mandate seems to have had very little effect on people's propensity to buy insurance. I’ve been careful to say in the past that that might change, because the mandate penalties were phased in over a few years and are only now at full strength. However, next year will pretty much tell us whether the mandate is going to work. If we don’t see a substantial increase in the number of people buying insurance for 2017, then it will be safe to say that the mandate was too weak, and that we are not going to get the hoped-for surge of young, healthy people into the Obamacare exchanges. Which, in turn, will be bad news for prices.

    The subsidies, on the other hand, are obviously affecting behavior, because most of the people buying exchange policies qualify for substantial subsidies. The good news is that this will blunt the desire for healthier people to drop their coverage as the price of policies rises, because those cost increases will be passed on to the government rather than the consumer. The bad news is that health is positively correlated with income (on average, the richer you are, the healthier you are likely to be), so a market in which the poorest people are the least likely to drop their coverage is a market in which you are selecting for a sicker, more expensive pool.

    The worse news is that, unbeknownst to most people, the subsidies are actually capped at a little over 0.5 percent of gross domestic product. We’re nowhere near that level yet -- the Congressional Budget Office expects us to spend about $43 billion in 2017 on premium tax credits, while 0.5 percent of GDP would be a hair over $90 billion -- but it doesn’t take too many years of 10 percent increases to get there.

    Does that mean that we’re entering a death spiral? No. This could be the year insurers finally get it together and find an equilibrium price for insurance at which the customers are willing to buy, and at which the insurers can actually make money. It’s been a hairy few years for insurers selling policies on the exchanges, but the pool seems to have stabilized at about 10 million people, and maybe now they’ll finally able to get an accurate cost forecast.

    What recent news tells us is simply that a death spiral remains possible, because despite last year’s big increases, they still haven’t found that equilibrium price. Since we don’t know what that price may be, we can’t say whether it will make a viable market. And even if there is no viable equilibrium price, that still doesn’t mean we’re in for a death spiral, because we don’t know what the government will do. Say some state-level exchanges start going into death spirals. Does Congress just sit around and watch the market die?

    That’s a genuine question; I don’t know the answer. But if the Obamacare exchanges die, they will take the entire individual insurance market with them in the affected states, because the law no longer permits insurers to separate the pools. There’s at least some chance that Republicans will weigh ideology against screaming voters, and decide the voters win.   

    What it comes down to is that three years in, we still don’t know what this program is going to look like or what it is going to cost. The number of people covered could go up; it could go down; it could flatten out about where it is right now. And the same is true of premiums. All we can say for sure right now is that eventually, we’ll find out.

    This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

    To contact the author of this story:
    Megan McArdle  at mmcardle3@bloomberg.net

    To contact the editor responsible for this story:
    Brooke Sample  at bsample1@bloomberg.net

     

    The US is spending trillions less than expected on health care — and uninsured rates are at an all-time low

    in Current Events

    Posted

    3 hours ago, Mainecat said:

    THANKS OBAMA!!!!

     

    The US is spending trillions less than expected on health care — and uninsured rates are at an all-time low

    Updated by Sarah Kliff on June 21, 2016, 4:30 p.m. ET @sarahkliff sarah@vox.com

     
     

    The United States is spending trillions — yes, trillions — less on health care than government forecasters expected when Obamacare passed in 2010.

    Back then, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimated that the United States would spend $23.7 trillion on health care between 2014 and 2019.

    But the forecasting agency has regularly and repeatedly revised spending estimates downward over the past six years. In 2015, it estimated that health care would cost the United States $2.6 trillion less over that same five-year period, a new analysis from the Urban Institute and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation shows.

    nhe%20rwjf.png

    "It’s a pretty significant reduction, and really across all types of spending," says John Holahan, a fellow at the Urban Institute and co-author of the new report.

    This isn’t to say that the health care law caused health costs to grow slower than expected. The authors of the report make it clear that while the Affordable Care Act may have played some role, it is far from the main contributor.

    Rather, the figures show that the Affordable Care Act hasn’t exploded the federal budget, as critics charge. Quite the opposite — health costs have risen modestly as the uninsured rate has dropped to the lowest level on record.

    Medicare alone has cost $455 billion less than expected

    One remarkable fact about the lower-than-expected health costs is that they stretch across the entire health care sector. Medicare spending has come in lower than expected:

    medicare.png

    So has Medicaid spending:

    medicaid.png

    And so has private insurance:

    private%20insurance.png

    A bit of this has to do with lower-than-expected health insurance enrollment.

    Medicaid, for example, has millions fewer enrollees than CMS initially expected — a product of the Supreme Court making the program’s expansion optional in 2011.

    But this isn’t the case everywhere: Medicare, for example, is expected to have 700,000 additional enrollees in 2019 for $96 billion less. Think about that for a moment: Medicare will be spending less money to cover more people.

    This has everything to do with the fact that per-person costs of health care are dropping. Forecasters now expect Medicare to spend $12,527 per person in 2019 — significantly less than their estimate of $13,990 in 2010.

    One reason health spending is lower: Obamacare cut Medicare prices

    The health care law significantly reduced certain Medicare payments. It also created dozens of new programs that pay hospitals based on the quality of care they provide, not just the quantity.

    CMS knew all of this when it forecast health spending in 2010. But it didn’t know how exactly the changes would play out — whether hospitals, for example, would sign up for the pay-for-value programs or if they would change the trajectory of health spending. Much to health wonks’ frustrations, some forecasting agencies refused to estimate any savings from these programs. At the time, they were just too unknown.

    Now there’s at least some evidence that a handful of these programs are working to reduce costs. Hospital readmissions, for example, have fallen sharply since Medicare began penalizing providers for those unnecessary repeat visits.

    figure-1-readmissions.png

    Less health spending is good news for budgets — not so much for consumers

    Budgeteers will likely cheer the slower health cost growth. Less spending on health care means more money for the government to spend on other things like education or infrastructure.

    But for individual consumers, slower health spending likely doesn’t feel cheaper at all. In fact, it probably feels more expensive: One big way private insurers have held down costs is by asking consumers to pay a larger and larger chunk of their medical bills.

    Deductibles and copays have steadily grown over the past decade. Separate research shows that patients use less health care when they have to pay more. Sometimes they cut out unnecessary care — but patients will also skimp on the care they need, too.

    http://www.vox.com/2016/6/21/11981610/health-spending-slowdown-obamacare

     

     

    My wife has negotiations with healthcare providers every 6 months. This story is complete bullshit. Not to mention it was just published today that Obama care providers are raising the premiums again. 

    Hillary Russian Uranium deal

    in Current Events

    Posted

    How do you feel about Hillary first allowing Russia to obtain 1/5 of the United States uranium? Second Hillary and Bill profiting from Hillary approving this deal and later not reporting to payments after agreeing to disclose all payments like this. 

     

     

×
×
  • Create New...