Jump to content

U.S. Politics: Hairpiece In the Middle East Part 2


Recommended Posts

And it just keeps getting weirder: Fox News reporters to the rescue

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/24/greg-gianforte-fox-news-team-witnesses-gop-house-candidate-body-slam-reporter.html

Quote

 

At that point, Gianforte grabbed Jacobs by the neck with both hands and slammed him into the ground behind him. Faith, Keith and I watched in disbelief as Gianforte then began punching the man, as he moved on top the reporter and began yelling something to the effect of "I'm sick and tired of this!"

Jacobs scrambled to his knees and said something about his glasses being broken. He asked Faith, Keith and myself for our names. In shock, we did not answer. He then said he wanted the police called and went to leave. Gianforte looked at the three of us and repeatedly apologized. At that point, I told him and Scanlon, who was now present, that we needed a moment. The men then left.

To be clear, at no point did any of us who witnessed this assault see Jacobs show any form of physical aggression toward Gianforte, who left the area after giving statements to local sheriff's deputies.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

 

Man, that makes a Yuge difference. Unfortunately it will be possible for someone, somewhere at some time to lift the first quote, ignoring the second correction, and cite it as proof for why unions are bad for workers.

Hopefully you can edit the original some time.

Done, thanks for the tip!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This account not only shows Gianforte's statement is a lie but also is actually worse than Jacobs' own account. This is insane. This probably ends with Gianforte in jail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

I know it is crap based on the massively high deductable that my 'silver' plan has, which means that in order actually get any insurance coverage I have to spend around six thousand+ out of my own pocket....which is more than my annual medical costs in pretty much every year of my life except the one where I had surgery.  So, it's a financial drain unless I either don't use any services, so am only out the premiums, or develop a major health issue that will cost more than $6K.  My PCP supported ACA as better than nothing, even though he doesn't accept the insurance.

.....

Well, that's because that is kind of deliberate. The ACA was meant to lower costs, and since in the good ol US of A politically you can't actually have the government use its buying power to reduce costs, there are few methods to use out there. The one the ACA used was to try and not cover smaller stuff, and more big stuff. Hence deductibles.

It sounds like you want the "insurance" to be a payment scheme on a month to month basis. But its not that. If insurance is working most people should be out of pocket, most of the time. Its meant to cover you for when things go wrong.

Secondly, the ACA and health insurance in general has significant cross-subsidies from the young to the old. So even if you're not getting (in your mind) good value now, in 10, 20, 30 years time (no idea how old you are), then that may significantly reverse. Because you will then be being subsidised by younger participants. The ACA is taking a whole of life view, and smoothing payments. If you only concentrate on the current year, there is going to be a disconnect.

 

On a side note regarding the deductibles, at least for employer plans. It may not be the ACA. In Australia, we've been seeing premiums and deductibles rise through the time period discussed as well, and obviously we didn't have the ACA go into effect here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, ants said:

Secondly, the ACA and health insurance in general has significant cross-subsidies from the young to the old. So even if you're not getting (in your mind) good value now, in 10, 20, 30 years time (no idea how old you are), then that may significantly reverse. Because you will then be being subsidised by younger participants. The ACA is taking a whole of life view, and smoothing payments. If you only concentrate on the current year, there is going to be a disconnect.

I would put the probability of ACA in its current form lasting another 10 years well below 10%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Fez said:

 

Of course, if Quist does win now, national Republicans will say this was the reason and try to pretend its not because the national environment is getting real bad for them.

That's good. They'll continue on present course, exposing themselves evermore for 2018

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Perhaps. In assessing the truth or validity of this claim it would be in my view helpful to have some kind of time series data on this matter. If somebody knows where said time series data is, I'd be happy to look at.

The reason why said time series data is important is to look at general trends before the ACA was passed. It could be the ACA caused deductibles to rise. Or it could be that deductibles started to rise as employers were trying to deal with ever rising premium cost. Or it could be a combination of both.

The only time series data I could find on this matter is here:

http://kff.org/report-section/ehbs-2016-summary-of-findings/

As you are aware the law was not signed until 2010. From chart F, it would appear that there was a general trend in higher user cost (well technically, where deductibles were over 1000 per year).

Now I'll admit this data is limited because it only tells us how many plans, by firm type, had deductibles of 1000 or more. It doesn't tell us the average size of deductibles.

Just a question in general about the ACA and the deductibles, does it mean you have firstly pay the entire amount of deductibles before the insurance pays anything back? 

In my country every time you go the doctor you also need to pay a small amount (decided by the state) however the major part of the costs are payed back by the health insurance system (if you get payed back actually depends on the procedure, medicine, ... ) So for example a normal check-up you need to pay like € 5 out of your own pocket and the health insurance pays € 20. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tijgy said:

Just a question in general about the ACA and the deductibles, does it mean you have firstly pay the entire amount of deductibles before the insurance pays anything back? 

In my country every time you go the doctor you also need to pay a small amount (decided by the state) however the major part of the costs are payed back by the health insurance system (if you get payed back actually depends on the procedure, medicine, ... ) So for example a normal check-up you need to pay like € 5 out of your own pocket and the health insurance pays € 20. 

I can't say how it works for all insurance, but here's how it works for mine. For pharmaceuticals (medicine), my deductible is $100. So during the first drug refill of the year, I'm charged $100 for one of my medicines that first time around (it usually retails for $400 in the US, so I'm sure it costs $15 in Canada). All refills thereafter in the calendar year cost $10. For doctor visits, I pay the visit co-pay (usually $20) at the time of the visit. If it's a check-up, that's all I'll pay. But if it's for a specialist, or I have a procedure done, the doctor bills insurance. Insurance reimburses him/her for what they cover. Then I get a bill in the mail for the remainder. That will happen until I hit my deductible of $1,000, at which point I will no longer be charged for services above the visit co-pay. 

FWIW, I get my health insurance through my employer rather than through the ACA exchanges. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Billings Gazette rescinded their endorsement of Gianforte and it's quite on point.

 

Quote

 

We believe that you cannot love America, love the Constitution, talk about the importance of a free press and then pummel a reporter. 

Beyond that, if Gianforte didn't have the good and common sense to simply walk away from questions he didn't like, we cannot believe he's going to be able to make much more difficult, complex decisions when he's in Congress

 

 

http://billingsgazette.com/opinion/editorial/gazette-opinion-we-re-pulling-our-endorsement-of-gianforte/article_34d90b42-545b-5e10-9355-605b7c5cb11f.html

 

And I believe several more, if not all newspapers, have rescinded their endorsements including the Missoulian.

http://missoulian.com/opinion/editorial/missoulian-rescinds-gianforte-endorsement/article_ab947a9d-9220-5dc5-9193-f1ae9ef03c60.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now everyone. Just a reminder. Please don't ask any Republican questions about the Republican healthcare bill. And whatever you do, please do not ask any questions about the latest CBO score.

Just pretend everything is well. Otherwise, you might hurt their feelings and they will get upset.

And we can't have that:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/05/greg-gianforte-surprisingly-sensitive-about-cbos-score-ahca

Quote

Greg Gianforte is running for the House seat in Montana left open when Ryan Zinke was named Secretary of the Interior. It turns out he really, really doesn't like being asked what he thinks of the CBO's score of the Republican health care bill:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Now everyone. Just a reminder. Please don't ask any Republican questions about the Republican healthcare bill. And whatever you do, please do not ask any questions about the latest CBO score.

Just pretend everything is well. Otherwise, you might hurt their feelings and they will get upset.

And we can't have that:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/05/greg-gianforte-surprisingly-sensitive-about-cbos-score-ahca

 

I don't understand what that article adds to what we're already discussing about the Gianforte incident?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, kairparavel said:

Yeah, but its a local Fox affiliate, and not one that's owned and operated by corporate Fox. Plenty, though certainly not all, of those affiliates are perfectly fine local news stations that have zero connection to Fox News Channel.

 

9 hours ago, Inigima said:

This account not only shows Gianforte's statement is a lie but also is actually worse than Jacobs' own account. This is insane. This probably ends with Gianforte in jail.

He's been cited with misdemeanor assault, which is punishable by up to six months in county jail. I thought the incident sounded more like a felony, but apparently under Montana law the victim needs to suffer "serious injury" for felony assault to apply.

And it looks like the local papers are all covering the story; so hopefully it gets through to voters this morning. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...