Trump Tweets (no more)

[Eisdrache]

Originally Posted by frivolity

And how exactly is this a fair trade?

In a state individuals sometimes have to set back their preferences in order to keep it working as a whole. Keeping healthcare affordable for everyone, including the old and sick, is one of these areas. Solidarity is important in communities but does not work when everyone is only out for their own profit.

Originally Posted by frivolity

How is this relevant to what I said? Again, the proportion of people who will be rejected for insurance at the age of 20 is very low. Majority of those people who developed symptoms that made them uninsurable were once young and healthy but chose not to buy insurance while they could.

What's missing from your analysis is the cost of side of things. If you force insurance companies to accept people without taking their conditions into account, then the payouts will always exceed the total premiums collected, which causes the system to collapse. This is indeed what's been happening, with another two insurers leaving the Obamacare exchanges a couple of days ago. Explain to me with some numbers how your system is going to remain solvent.

Originally Posted by frivolity

This is precisely why insurance must be bought when you're young and healthy, and not when you're old and showing symptoms of disease. There is simply no way to make the numbers work if you have a system where people are allowed to buy insurance after they've shown symptoms and then claim for that. How else do you explain the massive losses by insurance firms as a result of the ACA, leading to many of them leaving the Obamacare exchanges?

What is actually happening is that less young people are signing up than expected, leading to a risk pool that has been unproportionally expensive.

Images

Numbers March 2016

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

The system by itself is not bad but it needs both healthy and sick to work. Rather than complaining about high premiums people should try to bring the healthy uninsured people around them into it. That would lower costs MUCH more than anything else.

Originally Posted by frivolity

All of the measures that you're putting up are highly affected by factors that have nothing to do with the healthcare system. The Bloomberg ranking, for example, is highly affected by life expectancy, which is a very broad category that is heavily influenced by factors such as crime. Lung disease is more a reflection of how widespread smoking is, as compared to the healthcare system. Cancer survival rate, however, is almost purely due to healthcare, because people generally don't recover without treatment.

You are really grasping at straws here. Not only do you fail to produce any source to prove the opposite but your arguments are flat out made up. The WHO link literally says Health Care Rating, the commonwealthfund links explicitly refer to health care and your claim that bloomberg overly accounts for crime is extremely vague. Not to mention that you think that magnifying cancer survival is an accurate measure of health care. And then there is your nonsense about lung diseases and smoking. Smoking is just one of the major factors, alongside infections and genetics.

Originally Posted by frivolity

Ok, give me your definition of what a ponzi scheme means, and give me a set of illustrative numbers that demonstrate that allowing one or more generations to spend more on healthcare than they contribute will not be detrimental to future generations.

In a ponzi scheme

• Investors are promised that if they wish to drop out they would receive all their contributions back. This is obviously not the case with health care.
• Investors are promised unusually high returns by means of very obscure business methods, taking advantage of the lack of knowledge of its victims. Health care is well documented and readily available to anyone taking the time to look into it.
• Investors cannot enforce to get their promised returns through court. If an insurance company refuses to pay for a valid claim, they will be hold accountable for it.
• The wealth is not regulated. Insurance companies are regulated by the government and have to meet strict financial standards.
• Investors are not protected against unexpected collapse of the model. Individuals have the possibility of switching to another insurance company (when the market is open). Additionally every US state has guaranty associations in place to protect contract owners against insolvency.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by monir

Refresh your memory on the power of the Executive branch.

Clearly you haven't read the constitution it was illegal and unconstitutional. Only Congress has the right to declare war. Just because past presidents have skirted the law doesn't mean it isn't the law.

[frivolity]

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

In a state individuals sometimes have to set back their preferences in order to keep it working as a whole. Keeping healthcare affordable for everyone, including the old and sick, is one of these areas. Solidarity is important in communities but does not work when everyone is only out for their own profit.

A state in which individuals are forced to set back their own preferences in order to work for the whole has inevitably ended up worse off than a state in which individuals work to fulfil their own interests. There are several examples of these cases in history. The greatest advancements that have led to improvements in welfare around the world have occurred through individuals acting in their own self interest, such as Henry Ford revolutionising the automobile industry, which greatly improved transport for everyone and caused several knock-on benefits. Bill Gates, driven by profit incentives, has done more to bring people out of poverty than Mother Theresa,[1] and that is even before he started his Foundation, which is a private charity.

The reason for this simple: when you spend your own money for your own benefit, you have every incentive to be prudent with your spending in order to obtain the greatest benefit at the lowest cost. When you spend other people's money for the benefit of yet another group of people, you have no incentive to be prudent with your spending and no incentive to obtain the greatest benefit. You see this effect in practically every government department around the world.

Aside from that, going back to the idea of a "fair trade", what is fair trade and who gets to define it?

[1]: I'm aware of the controversy surrounding Mother Theresa, and that's immaterial here. We can proceed on the idealised version of Mother Theresa.

What is actually happening is that less young people are signing up than expected, leading to a risk pool that has been unproportionally expensive.

Images

Numbers March 2016

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

The system by itself is not bad but it needs both healthy and sick to work. Rather than complaining about high premiums people should try to bring the healthy uninsured people around them into it. That would lower costs MUCH more than anything else.

You're mixing up the cause and the effect. The reason why the risk pool has been proportionally expensive is precisely because Obamacare forced insurers to accept applications from people with pre-existing conditions, which forced them to raise their premiums, which forced healthy individuals do drop their coverage due to the high prices, in turn forcing even higher premiums, and repeat ad infinitum.

I've already described this in post #132:

In the same way, there cannot be a health insurance system in which people are allowed to buy insurance after a pre-existing condition has shown up. Anyone familiar with the economics of insurance would easily have predicted its eventual failure. When pre-existing conditions are covered, more and more high-risk people with pre-existing conditions that make them more costly to insure will sign up, causing prices to go up for the healthy individuals, some of whom decide that the insurance is no longer worth it for them and drop their coverage, causing prices to go up even higher, causing even more healthy people to drop out, and repeat ad infinitum.

The system is a terrible system that has resulted in less choices for Americans due to the number of insurers who have left the exchanges due to massive losses.

Images

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

You are really grasping at straws here. Not only do you fail to produce any source to prove the opposite but your arguments are flat out made up. The WHO link literally says Health Care Rating, the commonwealthfund links explicitly refer to health care and your claim that bloomberg overly accounts for crime is extremely vague. Not to mention that you think that magnifying cancer survival is an accurate measure of health care. And then there is your nonsense about lung diseases and smoking. Smoking is just one of the major factors, alongside infections and genetics.

It's called confounding variables. Calling it a healthcare rating only means that the source is using it as a proxy for healthcare. They can give it any other name and it would not make a difference from a statistical perspective. You still have to look at what sort of data they are using to generate their statistic.

Bloomberg's methodology uses life expectancy, which is contaminated with all kinds of confounding variables that have nothing to do with healthcare, with crime being one of them. Cancer survival, on the other hand, is very closely tied to healthcare since it has less confounding variables. This is because cancer survival depends largely on continual healthcare treatment, and the 5-year window is shorter than using a window based on lifetime, thereby reducing the effect of deaths arising out of other factors.

Thank you for naming some of the other confounding variables that influence lung disease. So we agree that lung cancer rates are affected by smoking, genetics, and infections, two of which are not related to the healthcare system, and one of which is only partially related to healthcare. That is why lung disease is not a good measure of healthcare effectiveness.

[I replaced your list with a numbered list for ease of response]
In a ponzi scheme

1. Investors are promised that if they wish to drop out they would receive all their contributions back. This is obviously not the case with health care.
2. Investors are promised unusually high returns by means of very obscure business methods, taking advantage of the lack of knowledge of its victims. Health care is well documented and readily available to anyone taking the time to look into it.
3. Investors cannot enforce to get their promised returns through court. If an insurance company refuses to pay for a valid claim, they will be hold accountable for it.
4. The wealth is not regulated. Insurance companies are regulated by the government and have to meet strict financial standards.
5. Investors are not protected against unexpected collapse of the model. Individuals have the possibility of switching to another insurance company (when the market is open). Additionally every US state has guaranty associations in place to protect contract owners against insolvency.

This list does not go to the heart of a Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi scheme is a financing structure in which the contributions of future generations of members are the dominant source of financing used to pay earlier generations of members. This is a necessary and sufficient condition of Ponzi schemes. Not all the characteristics you posted apply to Ponzi schemes, and many viable business models show some of the characteristics that you've posted.

To respond to your list one by one:
1. Not needed for a Ponzi scheme. In any case, the implicit selling point of socialised healthcare is that each generation contributes when they are young and they will receive the full amount back when they grow old. I don't know of a single case in which a government admits to its young people that the system will not be able to maintain the same standard of healthcare if the population falls.
2. Not needed for a Ponzi scheme. A system that promises a low or moderate amount of returns can still be a Ponzi scheme if these returns are not generated from sources other than new member contributions.
3. A Ponzi scheme does not exhibit this characteristic. You can take the operator of a Ponzi scheme to Court too for breach of contract.
4. Not a unique characteristic of a Ponzi scheme. Lots of businesses that are not Ponzi schemes are unregulated.
5. Applies to both a Ponzi scheme and to Obamacare. There are many counties in the US whose exchanges are now served by only one insurer.

Edit: Definition of a ponzi scheme as defined by the US Securities and Exchange Commission:

A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that pays existing investors with funds collected from new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often promise to invest your money and generate high returns with little or no risk. But in many Ponzi schemes, the fraudsters do not invest the money. Instead, they use it to pay those who invested earlier and may keep some for themselves.

With little or no legitimate earnings, Ponzi schemes require a constant flow of new money to survive. When it becomes hard to recruit new investors, or when large numbers of existing investors cash out, these schemes tend to collapse.

Ponzi schemes are named after Charles Ponzi, who duped investors in the 1920s with a postage stamp speculation scheme.

The characteristics you posted are warning signs or red flags but are neither necessary nor sufficient conditions.

[CrowKenobi]

Originally Posted by monir

Refresh your memory on the power of the Executive branch.

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Clearly you haven't read the constitution it was illegal and unconstitutional. Only Congress has the right to declare war. Just because past presidents have skirted the law doesn't mean it isn't the law.

Perhaps a reading of this is needed: War Powers Resolution

[monir]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Clearly you haven't read the constitution it was illegal and unconstitutional. Only Congress has the right to declare war. Just because past presidents have skirted the law doesn't mean it isn't the law.

For argument sake, suppose you're right.... Then I'm sure congress will wrestle away their war power by trout slapping Trump in the coming days and put him in his place. Or at least reprimand Trump just like they did to Obama (98 senators) in 2011 when he went to Libya because he could not stand by and watch Gaddafi slaughter his own people.

Trump's executive action in Syria is constitutional and will remain constitutional until congress can prove otherwise or repeal the current war power and enact a new legislation with clear outline to the role of the Executive branch. Until then..............

[Blueknight78]

man i really still don't get how exactly USA could "elect a guy like trump as president, it's really show how fail is the american election system with this thing about "not direct vote, while my country (Brazil) we also have issues with really crap politicians, it's is about corruption with politics which just want stright steal our money but at last our system is based on direct elections where the votes are counted individually for each candidate not have peoples whcih didin't vote or wanted candidate A or B take they votes just because they not where majority in the province.

this guy is just crazy xenofobic and egocentric, how the hell a country can elect a guy like that.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Blueknight78

this guy is just crazy xenofobic and egocentric, how the hell a country can elect a guy like that.

Because that guy best represents Americans. Your assumption is that every nation's people cared about electing a good leader. Sometimes, a nation's people want their own government destroyed.

We had multiple Americans claiming they are voting Trump to burn the country down, and they are in this very forum.

[DevilHighDxD]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Because that guy best represents Americans. Your assumption is that every nation's people cared about electing a good leader. Sometimes, a nation's people want their own government destroyed.

We had multiple Americans claiming they are voting Trump to burn the country down, and they are in this very forum.

These are dumbasses, I personally voted for Trump to go against the current extreme PC/SJWs leaning society of ours. The reasons why Trump won is because Hillary is a unpopular candidate and democratic abandoned the working White class Americans (the majority of the votes). Trump reached out for them and promised them jobs (whether he can fulfilled these promises is a different story). Trump's MAGA message resonates greatly with Americans, heck even the Chinese Americans community, the group that I am part of is more enthusiast for Trump than Hillary. They even paid for an aerial "Chinese Americans Support Trump" campaign. No one want our government to be destroyed, these idiots that say these things are probably salty democratic.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Trump's "message" are lies that are so obvious, that I don't think anyone is fooled by it. You certainly aren't voting for him for the healthcare reform that he never looked at, or the tax reform that he just abandoned in the last few days. The boarderwall with Mexico is unfunded and not physically feasible.

These are not recent revelations. You knew this before the election. Whatever you voted him for, it has nothing to do with his speeches.

[DevilHighDxD]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Trump's "message" are lies that are so obvious, that I don't think anyone is fooled by it. You certainly aren't voting for him for the healthcare reform that he never looked at, or the tax reform that he just abandoned in the last few days. The boarderwall with Mexico is unfunded and not physically feasible.

These are not recent revelations. You knew this before the election. Whatever you voted him for, it has nothing to do with his speeches.

I am painfully awared of how unqualified Trump is, my vote for him is mostly for laughs as most of my colleagues is democratic (that about how much of a fuck I gave to the election). I lived in NYC (Hillary is for certain getting the electoral votes), I went in voting positive that Trump is gonna lose. But there are genuine people who voted for Trump thinking that he will improve their life, not one of these people want their country destroyed or burn.

[Toukairin]

The problem with a large number of Americans is that many of them are still grasping to a pipe dream about what an improvement to their lives would be while disregarding how the world has evolved. Meanwhile, societies, mentalities, and technologies change everywhere else in the world. Unless you're a non-American or an American who saw enough of the world to appreciate the best elements of human diversity, this is something you wouldn't understand.

[Key Board]

Trump's campaign has managed to convince disenfranchised working class people that the problem in the USA is not unchecked capitalism and corporatism
and instead to blame that on identity politics and minorities
They have managed to sell the the narrative that the Obama government cares more about "such people" than their jobs

and it's working.

Trump has what.. 5, 6 Goldman Sachs executives on his cabinet now? The very same thing he accused Hilary of being guilty about? Does anyone care?
he also managed to sell the narrative that if Corporations have less deregulation, it would bring more profit and it would trickle down to the workers underneath.
Trickle down economics only benefit CEOs
It seems to me, Capitalism is transforming into an official state religions where you will be considered unAmerican if you disagree with that

[monir]

Originally Posted by monir

Hah! Whatever his motif is I still supported the strike. One of the few issues that I had with Obama was he talked a bit too much at times. He should have struck when the "red line" was crossed. Those three chemical attack had even bigger number of civilian casualties.

Either way, the shoe is on the other foot for Trump so this attack should not sway any investigation toward whether there is a link between the Donald and Russia. It might, however, boost his national standings. I think he thinks so too cause he's in a congratulatory mood:

"Congratulations to our great military men and women for representing the United States, and the world, so well in the Syria attack. "

I am now very confused about Donald's motive. Here is his couple of recent tweets that add to my confusion:

"I explained to the President of China that a trade deal with the U.S. will be far better for them if they solve the North Korean problem!

"North Korea is looking for trouble. If China decides to help, that would be great. If not, we will solve the problem without them! U.S.A."

Tillerson's statement to Russia before he visits Moscow just keeps adding to the confusion. I don't know what to think anymore.

[Archon_Wing]

Seems pretty straight forward. China's help is wanted but not mandatory.

Of course said statement does indirectly pressure things since I doubt China wants the other possibility

I actually thunk Trump is playing this pretty good.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by Archon_Wing

Seems pretty straight forward. China's help is wanted but not mandatory.

Of course said statement does indirectly pressure things since I doubt China wants the other possibility

I disagree, the only thing china does not want is a reunified Korea. They ratter have a misbehaving mix of Haiti and Cuba on their border (that would never bite their hand).

I actually thunk Trump is playing this pretty good.

I do agree that Trump is playing, with fire and he risks getting burned pretty badly.

Lets play the basic scenarios:

1) The US Navy does nothing but stare at NK. They keep testing nuclear weapons and missiles. Trump proves to be a paper tiger.

2) The US Navy does shots their missiles/cannons at NK. Who fired first is irrelevant. NK shoots back. SK and Japan get caught in the fray. Damage to lives and property could go really insane really fast.

What I see is a lose-lose scenario. The only question is how much losing will occur.

[Archon_Wing]

Originally Posted by mangamuscle

I disagree, the only thing china does not want is a reunified Korea. They ratter have a misbehaving mix of Haiti and Cuba on their border (that would never bite their hand).

The potential refugees that would pour over would seem to be a problem.... plus having the US exert influence on their front step?

I do agree that Trump is playing, with fire and he risks getting burned pretty badly.

Actually the world has already been playing fire with North Korea for quite a while

1) The US Navy does nothing but stare at NK. They keep testing nuclear weapons and missiles. Trump proves to be a paper tiger.

Oh, so business as usual. Nothing lost.

2) The US Navy does shots their missiles/cannons at NK. Who fired first is irrelevant. NK shoots back. SK and Japan get caught in the fray. Damage to lives and property could go really insane really fast.

What I see is a lose-lose scenario. The only question is how much losing will occur.[

Of course, if they continue to test their nuclear weapons, the problem's only going to get worse at a later point in time.

I mean look, what else can anyone do? Ask them politely not to build nuclear weapons? Pretend they don't have any? Cutting off trade with them has sure done the people there a lot of good. Been a lot of that, to no avail. This is the closest one can get without using force in the hopes that the idea of self-preservation remains a thing.

It's called deterrence. But it only has value if the thread can be realized.

[Ithekro]

Or wait for them to test another missile and actively shoot it down.

[Archon_Wing]

Wait, we can just shoot down nuclear missiles like that?

[Ithekro]

It be impressive. And yes the MDA (Missile Defense Agency) was designed to do that.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Archon_Wing

Wait, we can just shoot down nuclear missiles like that?

Yes. Nuclear weapons don't detonate if mechanically destroyed. It is a delicate piece of precision machinery. You might cause some slight nuclear contamination at the crash site if you are unlucky, but that is easier to handle than an actual nuclear blast.