Re: Trump II

[JoeKitchen]

Well Trump is correcting some of the bonehead mistakes of Obama and Hillary.  So we are mentioning them to make a point.  Such as Obama's Syria red line which emboldened all our enemies and pulling our fleet out of the Pacific and giving a green light to China to build those islands into military bases.  How about the mess of Obamacare creating medical insurance costs out of site?  Hillary's giving the green light to execute Libya's Gadhafi and fracturing that country into a terrorist nest?  Obama doing nothing about North Korea so now we have to deal with his missiles and nukes almost at our doorstep.  Any mistakes Trump has made, so far, are rather minor and more about tone than policies.

+1 on the mistakes of our last administration.  If only good speeches ensured good leadership. 

[JoeKitchen]

Be careful, Alan is from German orgin

And believe it or not, English is also a Germanic language (if we believe Wikipedia)   

Not exactly.  English is the melding of Anglo-Saxton and Welch dialect, Irish, German and French. 

Plus, Germen only has about 200K word families, whereas English has about 550K (matched in size only by Russian).  All those extra words had to come from somewhere. 

[LesPalenik]

And here it is today:





https://www.thelocal.fr/20150115/are-there-really-no-go-zones-in-paris

[texshooter]

Nice painting...oh, wait, did you think that was a photo instead of a romanticized illustration?

Perhaps Paris was not as romantic as today, but one can still reminisce

[texshooter]

Nice painting...oh, wait, did you think that was a photo instead of a romanticized illustration?

You got me.  Paris is just as romantic as ever.

[JoeKitchen]

Using this logic, we should all be happy and support the Republican proposal.  For two years, both of my daughters were independent contractors.  They had good incomes but were reliant on Obamacare for their health insurance.  A number of their friends are/were free-lance workers and also dependent on this type of healthcare access.  Again, think twice before you post throw away lines.  It may be a small group of individuals but these folks are important and in many cases are good earners and taxpayers.

Alan, every time you say this, you say it as if freelancers had difficulty finding/getting coverage and could not get it for a reasonable price. 

This is simply not true; I, for years, prior to the ACA was able to get reasonable health insurance.  Since the ACA, by the way, my premiums have almost doubled by now. 

If your daughters, or their friends, could not find health insurance prior to the ACA being passed, then they certainly were not looking hard enough.  I got my coverage in about a week after I started looking for it. 

[JoeKitchen]

Both girls were free lancers after the implementation of Obamacare and had no prior experience with purchasing individual policies.

Well then, my recommendation to you is to stop using your children to justify keeping the ACA since neither has any 1st hand experience in how easy it was to buy insurance as a freelancer prior to the law going into effect.  Considering this, using them as a justification for the ACA makes no sense, especially since many freelancers, myself included, easily bought health coverage prior to the ACA. 

Furthermore, you should also stop using the increase in freelancers as a reason to keep the ACA since those freelancers you know have never tried to acquired coverage prior to the ACA. 

Let me repeat myself, I had absolutely no problems whatsoever in getting health insurance prior to the ACA.  Additionally, the insurance I had then was cheaper, had lower deductibles and better coverage then what I have now, unless you count the free yearly prostate exams or colon screenings or (my favorite) maternity care I am now offered. 

[JoeKitchen]

What state were you in and how old were you when buying that pre-ACA insurance?

Considering Alan has lead on to that his daughters are about my age, I don't see how this matters to our conversation. 

But since you asked, I was living in PA, just outside Philadelphia and was about 27.  At the time, my premium was $147 with no life time maximums, a detectable $2000 per year and a copay of $45 for office visits.  I did not have a prescription plan, but prescriptions were covered after I met my deductible, along with the costs of any surgeries.  Now I could have bought a prescription plan for any extra $75 per month, but I only spent $15 per prescription for being sick about once every 2 to 3 years since then (full price, no copay).  Also, if you don't have $2000 in the bank for emergencies by the time you're 27, you've been living life all the the wrong ways, so I did not see a reason to pay for a lower deductible plan. 

Now my premium is $347 per month; I got a 47% increase from last year to this.  I still have the break down for age groups from the first plan I got at 27, and, for the 35 age group (my current age), it was not nearly that high.  Additionally, my deductible is $6000 now. 

BTW, I love how you conveniently left out the rest of my paragraph, "Additionally, the insurance I had then was cheaper, had lower deductibles and better coverage then what I have now, unless you count the free yearly prostate exams or colon screenings or (my favorite) maternity care I am now offered."

[JoeKitchen]

I was only curious about where you were when you bought your pre-ACA insurance and your age. Why? Because when I bought healthcare insurance prior to ACA, I had a high deductible, a lifetime cap and was locked into a specific BCBS plan that kept getting more and more expensive because I couldn't change plans due to preexisting conditions. So, when we bought the first ACA plan the price was about 1/2, preexisting conditions didn't matter and there was no life time cap.

So, sorry if you didn't like your ACA plan, I liked mine. I'm just hoping the GOP/Trump doesn't screwup the entire healthcare insurance industry before I turn 65 and can get Medicare.

Yes, I will contest that the pre-existing condition senecio that existed prior to the ACA was unacceptable, most of the time. 

There are parts of the bill I support like that, but the majority of it I do not support like the minimum requirements needed. 

[JoeKitchen]

I don't give a darn what your thoughts are about the ACA.  My only point is that it is a critical resources for those who are working as contractors and not eligible for employer paid insurance.  It is particularly valuable for women as they are not discriminated against as they were pre-ACA (higher premiums and restricted benefits).  If you don't like how this evolved, that's fine you are entitled to your opinion.  Maybe you don't have children who are of working age and are female; I do and for me the ACA has been important to the lives of my two daughters.  Both are now working for employers who provide insurance; one is a music therapist at a well respected children's hospital affiliated with a top ten medical school and the other is a special education teacher for grades 3-5 at a public elementary school.

My point here is simple.  You keep on using freelancers as a reason to keep the ACA, while completely ignoring the fact that it was very easy to get coverage prior to the ACA and almost implying that this was not the case. 

Therefore, your arguments are moot. 

[JoeKitchen]

No Joe, you have constantly misread my comments since this thread began and the other one where there was a discussion of the ACA.  I never made any comparison about the pre-ACA world as I had ZERO experience with it regarding my daughter's insurance.  My comments were always about how the ACA helped THEM.  You may not like that and your experience is different but DON'T go attacking me about what my observations are.  The ACA worked for my daughters and a number of their friends, END OF STORY.

If you're comments were limited to, "my daughters were able to buy insurance on the exchanges," then it it would be end of story. 

But you then went on to talk about how "it is a critical resource for those who are working as contractors."  It simply is not a critical resource!  Many, and i repeat many, other resources existed, and still do, for freelancers to get health insurance besides the exchanges. 

It is not so critical if so many other just as easy to use resources (or even better, websites that did not crash for ~5 months on end upon release) exist. 

Oh, and today I got a "John Dear" letter from my insurance agency.  Due to the regulations stemming from the ACA, my coverage will not be offered next year, second time this has happened to me.  Looks like I am in for another nice increase in my premium. 

[JoeKitchen]

That's neither discrimination, nor cost control. This is how insurance works. You pay more based on risk. If I move the same car from one zip-code to another, my premium changes. If I buy a Honda Accord of certain vintage, my premium jumps (hint: Accords of certain vintage turn out to be the most stolen cars in the U.S.)

I can remember paying more for car insurance when I was 20. 

What's the stature of limitations on filing suits of this nature?  Can I still sue my car insurance company for age discrimination? 

[JoeKitchen]

Perhaps... but first you'd have to get rid of millions of American flags everyday and everywhere, on porches, roofs, yards, cranes, American presidents' and politicians' lapels, etc. And get rid of the Pledge of Allegiance every morning in every school in America.

Or perhaps... it is American patriotism. Americans love their country. Europeans, apparently not so much. Otherwise, they wouldn't let them be so easily OD (occupied and decimated) in not so distant future.

Personally, I could care less about this.  I am not a sports fan and find it rather boring to watch other people play a game. 

Although I do think most of the news sources, CNN included, are covering this the wrong way.  Ratings for football are way down, and from most of the people I have spoken to about this who like sports, they are upset with how political it has become.  Same thing for ESPN. 

Almost all feel that no player should be kneeling; lets face it, more sports fans are conservatives.  Some others have the opposite feelings but still wish it was just about the game.  This is the story the news is missing. 

I think the NFL is just going to continue to loose more viewers and eventually it will hurt their bottom line if it has not already. 

[JoeKitchen]

Then maybe that half might want to learn how to talk and behave in ways that don't come off as racist to the other half of the country...

This is one of the most absurd things you have posted. 

[JoeKitchen]

Anyway, time to add a little humor to this NFL thing. 

[JoeKitchen]

Hum, last time I checked, people from Puerto Rico are American citizens, right?

Although this is correct, Puerto Rico is not a state, but a territory, and does not receive the same rights and benefits that states do. 

This has nothing to do with Trump and more to do with congress.  Puerto Rico has held various referendums on becoming a state and in all cases the majority voted yes; last one was in June of this year with a 97% yes vote.  However, both houses need to vote on it as well.  In both Republican and Democratic controlled congresses, the referendums died. 

If you have an issue with this, you should call your congressmen about it. 

[JoeKitchen]

Oh, I have an issue with the way Puerto Rico is governed all right and while congress could certainly be held to blame for Puerto Rico's current financial plight, the fact is the president could make changes to the status using executive orders...

All of which is besides the point that Trump, instead of expressing any concern for American citizens suffering in Puerto Rico, is wasting his time fighting with pro sports athletes–particularly black athletes.

So, Joe, does this help America?

Is this a good use of presidential power?

Does this help race relations even a teeny tiny bit?

Or is Trump just playing a game because he thinks it's fun?
(with the side benefit of getting back at the NFL for ruining his USFL franchise)

I can't speak on what Trump finds fun or not.  Plus, I'm not a sports fan, not even a little bit, so I could care less about the whole NFL thing. 

Right now though, you seem to be getting pretty mad at the President for something congress handles.  And don't hide behind executive orders; that is not how things are changed.  You want real action on Puerto Rico, reach out to congress. 

Anyway, I am more worried about how Trump is handling North Korea and the possibility of the Doomsday Clock hitting midnight. 

[JoeKitchen]

Right no I'm angry that the president is wasting time starting a war with the NFL while apparently (based on Tweets) totally ignoring the plight of millions of American citizens in Puerto Rico...arguing about who is responsible for governing Puerto Rico is irrelevant-that are US citizens and deserve the help and support to recover from hurricane damage just like citizens in the other Caribbean US territories as well as residents of Florida and Texas.

Funny, I didn't think there were different classes of US citizens...

Are you saying because US citizens are in Puerto Rico, they deserve less help and support than US citizens in Florida or Texas?

Man, your on a roll today, and no that is not what I am implying. 

I am only implying that Puerto Rico is not a state, and, by law, does not get the same benefits and help that states do.  Regardless of the morality of the situation, this is how our constitution works. 

Now the reason for this is because congress is not acting on the referendums, more then likely because Puerto Rico grossly mismanaged their affairs from years of poor governance.  Congress does not want to foot that bill, but they also don't want to be seen executing a no vote.  This is why the referendums are never brought to the floor. 

If you have an issue, reach out to congress and say you want PR to become a state.  At the very least, you could also ask for them to put together a relief package since they need to approve it anyway. 

I only really heard about help being sent to TX and FL.  What other US territories are currently getting relief funds? 

BTW, there are also lots of other weird things about being a territory, like you can't vote if you are a resident of one.  Is this something you also take issue with? 

[JoeKitchen]

So, you are ok with Trump ignoring the problems of Puerto Rico's US citizens (even if it ain't a state) while picking a fight with the NFL? I mean, is that what you think is a good expenditure of the president's time?

Wrong on both accounts. 

I am much more concerned with how he is handling N. Korea; I would like him to leave the NFL alone and pay more attention to that. 

Puerto Rico is not something I am paying any attention to.  I am merely pointing out you seem to be getting mad at the president over something he has no control of anyway.  You're going out of your way to create an issue here out of nothing. 

And getting back to my question, which US territories are current receive relief funds? 

[JoeKitchen]

Trump already signed a disaster declaration issued for the territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands and can apply for Federal aid as outlined in this FEMA alert:

Federal Aid Programs for the Territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands

Here's the alert for Puerto Rico:

Federal Aid Programs for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

FEMA staff are on the ground now in Puerto Rico but are facing massive devastation:

FEMA teams in Puerto Rico: 'It's absolutely devastating'

The last Tweet about Puerto Rico seems to have been posted on Sept 19th when he said:

But he's had the time to tweet over 17 times about the NFL and pro athletes?

What a bum...(that's what LeBron James called him...bit too mild for my taste)

So who is it up to, to initiate relief?  The president or congress? 

Seriously, I have no idea. 

My thought was that unless congress approve the spending, relief will not be sent. 

Additionally, how well funded in FEMA currently?  I remember reading recently they were pretty much out of money.