Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bostonangler

  1. Yes we should follow the leaders to the future. We don't need to lead. We all know that renewable energy is a waste and burning fossil fuel is a better way to go... Hey here's an idea, why don't we just start killing whales again for their blubber... That'll keep the lights on. Just don't chase them off the edge of the earth. B/A
  2. Loved her then, hate her now... That's the Trumpster's way... As for Sununu..... Ha Ha Ha Ha... He has zero credibility! He is one of the biggest swamp dwellers. B/A
  3. I said it was a conspiracy.... Geeez, you know like how the DNC killed that guy that Sean Hannity was lying about... B/A
  4. Sorry I can't get behind a murderer... Maybe you should move here, to The United States of Amnesia. Eradicate your own people last year and you're a good guy this year. I guess you'll start believing Syria's dictator next.... B/A
  5. That lefty rag???? Who believes the MSM? I guess everyone does when it works for their perspective... And yes I believe she is a crooked as the rest of them... B/A
  6. Seriously... Asteroids hit all the time... Or is that fake news? You people live in a dream world. B/A
  7. Now here is a conspiracy for you... LOL B/A MSNBC host stunned when spy catcher insists Jared Kushner is ‘absolutely’ a Russian agent Brad Reed 29 May 2017 at 10:48 ET Former FBI double agent Naveed Jamali talks on MSNBC (Screen cap). MSNBC host Stephanie Ruhle reacted with shock on Monday when one of her guests insisted that Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner should now be considered a Russian agent. Naveed Jamali, a former FBI double agent and author of the book How to Catch a Russian Spy, stunned Ruhle when he insisted that Kushner is “absolutely” a Russian agent, and he said that we already have enough information to determine that he has been compromised by Russia. “We already have Michael Flynn, we already have a relationship with the Russians that goes back to at least 2014,” he explained. “I think the FBI is going to look back, three to four years, to see if there’s potentially more connections to the Russians.” Ruhle was still skeptical about Jamali’s assertion, however, and said that accusing Kushner of being a Russian agent was “kind of a stretch.” Jamali, however, didn’t back down, and pointed out that many people become agents of foreign powers without realizing what they’re doing until after they’ve been compromised. “This is how it happens,” he explained. “In this case, I think, it could have been, perhaps, an innocent decision to try to make contact with them. And that’s how you start these things. The term ‘Russian agent’ is perhaps not what people think of in the movies. When you have someone who fails to register as a foreign agent, for example, that is what I’m talking about. This could be someone who started a relationship that was frankly inappropriate, that skirted the law, and then it made a hard-left turn.”
  8. This is obviously an opinion piece, but we have yet to see what the Senate comes up with.... I'm just glad I'm not old and sick, I wouldn't want my country who I've worked so hard for to forget me... B/A
  9. You've Been Duped The Affordable Care Act isn't raising your premiums. Republicans are. You've Been Duped The Affordable Care Act isn't raising your premiums. Republicans are. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images) Don't believe them. By J. Mario Molina | Opinion Contributor May 30, 2017, at 11:20 a.m. As I watch the debate unfold over repeal of the Affordable Care Act, I keep thinking about the Hans Christian Anderson story "The Emperor's New Clothes." In the story, the emperor's weavers convince him that they have made him clothes of special cloth, invisible to those too stupid to appreciate their beauty. The emperor parades through town stark naked, and his subjects are too afraid to state the obvious until one little boy blurts out that the emperor has no clothes. The emperor looks down and realizes the boy is right. You might guess that President Donald Trump is the emperor in my metaphor, but you'd be wrong. The emperor is the American public, who has been duped into believing that the Affordable Care Act is failing, even as Republicans work behind the scenes to destroy it. And who is the little boy in this story? I am. I am the former CEO of a health insurance company, and I have been warning publicly what will happen if Trump continues to effectively sabotage the Affordable Care Act. Earlier this month, I lost my job. When Trump ran for president, he promised reforms to ensure there would be health insurance for everyone and that it would be a "lot less expensive" than under President Barack Obama's health care law. We have yet to see the plan he described during his campaign. Instead, earlier this month, House Republicans passed the American Health Care Act – a bill the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office determined would cause 23 million Americans to lose health insurance coverage. When confronted with the dire projections about how their bill will make insurance unaffordable for their constituents, most of the representatives who voted for the bill often echo a line that Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan, Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price and Trump have used repeatedly: that the Affordable Care Act is in a so-called "death spiral" that will inevitably "explode," so they need to pass a bill, no matter how terrible, before it does. That narrative is patently false. In fact, most of the instability driving up premiums in the marketplace can be directly traced to Republicans' efforts to undermine the health care law for their own political purposes. Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, for example, was among the first to land a blow. In 2014, he proudly led a successful effort to cut funding for the "risk corridors" program. Rubio called the payments made from these funds a "bailout" for insurers, but in fact the program was an integral backstop to help control premiums as insurance companies in the marketplaces adjusted to the new population they were covering. The consequence of that ploy to score political points was that some insurers left the marketplace, and many Americans' premiums went up. Since Trump took office in January, these kinds of sneak attacks on the law have accelerated. During the final week of the open enrollment period, when consumers can sign up for a marketplace health care plan or choose a new one, Trump officials within the Department of Health and Human Services decided to cancel advertising and outreach for the website. That decision came despite the fact that it is well documented that younger, healthier enrollees tend to sign up at the last minute. It was a transparent effort to damage the stability of the health insurance marketplace and to create the illusion that demand for insurance was decreasing. They Passed It, and Now We Know What's In It CBO had a lot of bad news about the health care bill House Republicans already voted for. Perhaps the most drastic way that the Trump administration is sabotaging American's health insurance is by refusing to commit to reimbursing health plans for the cost-sharing reduction payments they make to lower out-of-pocket costs for their lowest income members. Insurance companies are currently in the process of determining their rates for the 2018 plan year, and without a guarantee from the administration that they will receive the payments they are owed, they will factor that added cost into their premiums for next year. And you don't have to take my word for it – the Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that insurers would need to raise premiums for silver-level plans by an average of 19 percent to compensate if the administration will not commit to making the cost-sharing reduction payments. One common thread in all these efforts is that Americans who purchase their health coverage through the individual market are the ones harmed, not insurance companies. The administration and Republicans in Congress want you to believe that insurers raising premiums for their plans or exiting the marketplaces all together are consequences of the design of the Affordable Care Act instead of the direct results of their own actions to sabotage the law. Don't let them fool you. If you think Obamacare is failing, I have one simple message for you: Open your eyes and stop being the emperor. B/A
  10. Study shows how GOP plan would lower premiums: ditching costly, sick people Ethan Wolff-Mann Yahoo FinanceMay 30, 2017 As the Senate rewrites the American Health Care Act (AHCA), the GOP’s bill to repeal Obamacare, the RAND Corporation released a new, in-depth report about chronic disease—a matter central to the health insurance debates. According to the report, people with five or more chronic conditions – which constitutes 12% of the population – accounted for 41% of total healthcare spending in 2014, the latest year of data. Adding people with three to five chronic conditions, these two groups constitute 28% of the population and account for 67% of spending. On the other end, 71% of the population, with two or fewer conditions, make up just 33% of total healthcare expenditures in the United States. The RAND Corporation’s report, which was done in conjunction with, paints a picture of a fairly standard insurance model: a large group subsidizes the other, smaller group, which uses more resources. Dismissing people who spend money lowers premiums Targeting how the larger group subsidizes the smaller group is one of the chief ways the GOP would lower premiums for healthcare purchased on the individual market. The Congressional Budget Office analysis of the AHCA found that 23 million people would lose health insurance by 2026. Many of them would be people with preexisting conditions, since states that receive waivers to loosen regulations surrounding insurance would take steps that would price out that population—even with additional funding to subsidize the costs. Since healthier people could choose a pool based on their expected healthcare costs over one based on “community rating”—an average of people in the same geographic area with the same age and smoking status—insurance costs would fall. For a state taking those steps, as well as reducing essential health benefits, the AHCA would likely be able to lower premiums 20% for healthy people buying individual insurance. In effect, these premium declines come out of two basic changes. The first is simple: fewer services cost less—though perhaps not for everybody because benefits like maternal care, substance abuse among others would run up a pretty big bill, and quickly. But the other factor comes from simply how insurance works. A group of people pay dues so that if something bad happens, the fund will help pay for them. If you take out the people who draw on the account – in this case, sicker people – the pool doesn’t need as much money and premiums go down. Besides pointing out who pays for whom, the RAND Corporation study colored debate around the CBO score and preexisting conditions by showing just how thin the line is between having one and not having one. According to the findings, six in 10 adult Americans had at least one chronic condition in 2014. Four in 10 had more than one. Chronic conditions aren’t necessarily preexisting conditions. (52 million adults have preexisting conditions today, touching 53% of households, according to a survey from Kaiser Family Foundation.) But as the editor-in-chief of Kaiser Health News Elisabeth Rosenthal wrote in a recent New York Times op-ed, the pre- and perhaps post-ACA landscape had insurers deciding to lower the bar for what a preexisting condition could be. This isn’t just older people, over 65, though 81% of that cohort has multiple chronic conditions. Half of adults 45 to 64 have multiple conditions, which has trended upwards since the early 2000s. If the GOP is unable to figure out a plan for preexisting conditions, the web of people it could entangle would be vast. Anyone remember Logan's Run??? B/A
  11. Great response FlyHi... Thanks for the rational and sensible remark.... Quite refreshing compared to the usual bottom-fishers. B/A
  12. True that... And exactly why precious metals still have value.. Of course guns and ammo would be more valuable than ever.
  13. That's what I say everyday when I read the comments here. B/A
  14. I haven't done much research on BitCoin, I do have a friend who is way up on his investment. I worry that one EMP would wipe the digital slate clean... B/A
  15. Forget it man, a couple of years ago these guys were singing his praises, now he's a traitor. This conspiracy stuff is really sick. Can you believe anyone would chose Putin over McCain. It's like The Black Plague has hit our friends on the alt-right... These cry babies can't handle a little criticism,, imagine if they were stuck in a cage. B/A
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.