|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 07 2017 15:42 mikedebo wrote:I am not saying that I agree with everything (or even half of what is in) in this opinion piece, but I thought it was an interesting read nonetheless. I'm pasting an excerpt of the opening, but the article as a whole begins with a lot with a lot more "edge" than it concludes with. Show nested quote +
Are You Now, or Have You Ever Been, a Secret Agent of Vladimir Putin?
The strange sight of liberal America participating in a neo-McCarthyite assault on Trump appointees, not on the grounds of their inherent racism and stupidity, but because they have contacts with Russia, is among the more surreal spectacles of modern political history. At what point did Russia become the official enemy of the U.S.? Wasn’t it just yesterday that Bush Jr looked into Putin’s eyes and declared him a honorable man? The truth is, of course, that Russia never stopped being the enemy. The internalized ethos of the cold war, the anti communist hysteria of post WW2 has always been there. The resentful flinty heart of America tolerates no disobedience. No country exhibiting the slightest autonomy is allowed to escape punishment and censure. The shining light on the hill symbolism is one that demands nobody else dare to exhibit anything that resembles their own leadership role globally.
The current animus toward Putin can be traced back to several clear sources, though, as Justin Raimondo points out…
Source
Started with potential, but kind of halfway through devolved into an annoying self-righteous whining.
|
On March 07 2017 13:38 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2017 13:36 Nevuk wrote:On March 07 2017 13:34 Mohdoo wrote:On March 07 2017 13:16 xDaunt wrote:
The GOP healthcare bill is basically one last attempt to salvage a predominantly privatized health insurance system. I doubt it will work, because the soft penalties on failing to sign up for health insurance aren't enough to coerce the healthy population to sign up. Once you mandate coverage for preexisting conditions, the whole concept of health insurance goes out the window. It feels like you're saying preexisting conditions isn't something that should be covered. Am I wrong here? I took it to mean that he doesn't think healthcare will be predominantly privatized much longer We have been moving that way since we stopped turning people away from emergency rooms because they are poor. Other countries figured this out all ready, we are just stubborn.
I don't think enough people really understand that this is the core issue. As a country, we have decided that no one should be turned away from getting life-saving medical care in the US. Once you make that decision (which I think almost all of us agree with), all you're left with is figuring out how to pay for it. You've gotta take money from wealthier people to do it, and you can use some obtuse method where we just make providers eat the cost (and incentivize people to maximize the cost by delaying care) or you come up with a comprehensive solution to minimize the costs.
|
On March 07 2017 14:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2017 13:56 Mohdoo wrote:On March 07 2017 13:53 xDaunt wrote:On March 07 2017 13:50 Mohdoo wrote:On March 07 2017 13:48 xDaunt wrote:On March 07 2017 13:44 Mohdoo wrote:On March 07 2017 13:37 xDaunt wrote:On March 07 2017 13:34 Mohdoo wrote:On March 07 2017 13:16 xDaunt wrote:
The GOP healthcare bill is basically one last attempt to salvage a predominantly privatized health insurance system. I doubt it will work, because the soft penalties on failing to sign up for health insurance aren't enough to coerce the healthy population to sign up. Once you mandate coverage for preexisting conditions, the whole concept of health insurance goes out the window. It feels like you're saying preexisting conditions isn't something that should be covered. Am I wrong here? In a privatized health insurance system, they should not be covered. So how do we prevent someone from essentially dying because they happened to get laid off after being sick? In a private system, the old coverage pays for the care for any condition arising before the termination of coverage. Any new coverage will take care of any condition arising after the adoption of the new coverage. As long as there's no gap in coverage, then the subject person is covered. Of course, this requires personal fiscal responsibility, which we no longer expect of people in this country. So you're saying if... 1. Enrolled in insurance A at the time of getting cancer 2. Lose job working at X 3. Get job at Y with insurance B Insurance B should cover my cancer treatment? Edit: And are you saying this is what *you* think should be the case, or describing something else? I'm curious how you think preexisting conditions should be handled. Your hypothetical is a little off. If you get cancer while on Insurance A, and later switch to Insurance B, Insurance A will typically be on the hook for covering the treatment in a system where preexisting conditions are not covered, because that's when the "loss" occurred. The previous insurance company remains on the hook even after I am no longer covered by them? That's correct. That's what insurance is. It's protection against the risk of loss. If the loss occurs, whatever insurance is covering you at the time has to pay up.
This doesn't seem to make any sense, and isn't how it has ever worked in practice. This would work if cancer were an acute condition (lets say pneumonia): you have an insurance policy A. You get pneumonia. You lose coverage, but because you had coverage when you got pneumonia, A is still on the hook for paying your treatment. You recover, and get a new policy B. They don't have to pay for your pneumonia meds. 5 years later you get pneumonia again, and B covers you.
The problem is that cancer is never really considered cured, and is generally considered a chronic disease. So you having insurance policy A, they pay for chemo, your cancer doesn't really go away, and in the meantime you lose coverage with A and switch to B. Who pays for the next round of therapy? B says "hell no, that's an existing condition" and A says "our job is done. Your cancer regression happened after your coverage ended. Too bad, so sad. Goodbye".
|
In Switzerland, for accidents, Insurer B would frontload the cost and can then "try" to get the Money back from insurer A - if he (that means his doctors) can proof that the treatment should be considered "belonging" to the old accident that Insurer A had to cover.
The Patient itself doesn't have much to do with it, his treatment gets paid, no matter how hard the insurers fight in the background.
For Illnesses the new insurer will just have to cover your treatments, no matter if they were preexisting or not. If an illness (or "damage") is really dire and you lose (most) of your abillity to work another, purely state run and tax funded, insurer takes over.
Both ways are perfectly viable. That we make a big distinction between accidents/illness in switzerland makes pretty much no sense.
|
Regarding the DNC primaries, I think that this is mainly a failing of having a 2-party system. But there seem to be two general ideas: GH and Nebuchad (maybe Mohdoo and nevuk too, but not sure) seem to think that the DNC primary was rigged, because Bernie was not given all the opportunities that Hillary was, and see that as a bad thing. However, many of the advantageous opportunities for Hillary are due to the fact that she has been with the DNC forever. She has the inside network. The choice in the primary is not an election of who is the most charismatic and has the best ideas. It's an election of who best represents the DNC in a presidential election. Kwizach is simply pointing out that having a network and being a party insider is an important part of representing the DNC.
Whether it should be or not is a separate question, which brings me to the bit about the 2-party system. In the Netherlands there was a somewhat similar issue. The PvdA was choosing the party leader for the upcoming elections, and there were 2 main candidates, both party insiders. There was a 3rd candidate who had some different ideas about where the party should be headed. He wanted the party program changed if he were to win the leadership election. But the party program was decided separately in a different process. He decided to leave the party and start his own party, which is simply the accepted way of doing things in NL. Geert Wilders used to be a parliamentary for the VVD until he got disgruntled and started his own party. Many people worry that the political landscape in NL is too fractured and it will be impossible to form a coalition after upcoming elections. But I'm personally not convinced: if the political landscape is in fact that fractured, isn't it better to have it out in the open, than have two (or more) completely different ideologies mushed together in a single party (RNC or DNC) that are only together due to the necessity imposed by the system (FPTP), and have GH completely disgruntled on the one side of the spectrum because the DNC isn't listening to his faction (or in an alternative world, ticklish could get completely disgruntled with the DNC because they ARE listening to GH's faction).
Similarly, I don't see how the RNC can satisfy such disparate views as professed by xDaunt, introvert and wegandi, yet they all necessarily vote for the RNC, because it's the only show in town for them.
|
On March 07 2017 19:42 Velr wrote:
In Switzerland, for accidents, Insurer B would frontload the cost and can then "try" to get the Money back from insurer A - if he (that means his doctors) can proof that the treatment should be considered "belonging" to the old accident that Insurer A had to cover.
The Patient itself doesn't have much to do with it, his treatment gets paid, no matter how hard the insurers fight in the background.
For Illnesses the new insurer will just have to cover your treatments, no matter if they were preexisting or not. If an illness (or "damage") is really dire and you lose (most) of your abillity to work another, purely state run and tax funded, insurer takes over.
Both ways are perfectly viable. That we make a big distinction between accidents/illness in switzerland makes pretty much no sense.
I wasn't referring to working healthcare systems, but to the completely disfunctional mess that was healthcare in the US before Obamacare. The Swiss (and the Dutch system that mostly just copied it) works quite okay. Single payer like we have here in Spain is also fine.
|
Sure, i just wanted to show tha preexisting conditions are not an issue if the laws behind the system have mainly the patients and not the companies in mind.
|
On March 07 2017 20:40 Velr wrote:
Sure, i just wanted to show tha preexisting conditions are not an issue if the laws behind the system have mainly the patients and not the companies in mind.
Making business out of normal healthcare is a terrible mistake. How much are people willing to pay for necessary treatment? Waaaay too much is the answer, and this WILL be exploited by insurance companies and hospitals alike. Pharmaseutic companies exploit the mainly state financed systems in Europe as well, but that happens on top of everything else in the US.
The US has by far the most expensive healtchare system in the world, but not the best one by any standards. You are stuck in your own mess, and it will be almost impossible to get out of it. Too bad Americans fail to see the absurdity which is needing a healthinsurance to get treatment.
|
Kremlin-controlled news outlets used to root for Donald Trump’s election. Now they’re reveling in the chaos and division of his early presidency.
“Sessions Scandal: ‘U.S Headed to Constitutional Crisis,’” reads a March 3 headline on the website of the Kremlin-funded English language network RT.
“Immigrants See American Dream Fade in Wake of Surge Hate Crimes,” Sputnik News, another English language outlet bankrolled by the Kremlin, reported the same day.
“America is in the grips of hatred,” the Russian television commentator Dmitry Kiselyov told viewers of the Rossiya 1 network on Sunday night. The popular host, appointed directly by Russian President Vladimir Putin, suggested the political discord could lead to violence in gun-friendly America — “a dangerous combination with free-flowing firearms,” he said.
It’s not that the Kremlin-controlled outlets which all but explicitly rooted for Trump to defeat Hillary Clinton last fall have changed their view of the New York mogul. It’s that Moscow’s main goal was always to undermine the U.S. political system, regardless of who is in the White House, experts said.
“The Russian government is savoring the severe damage to America’s international image a result of the tumultuous first weeks of the Trump administration’s tenure,” said Andrew Weiss, a former Clinton White House National Security Council official for Russian affairs.
That’s particularly true given dimming hopes in Moscow that Trump can now deliver on his pledge to cooperate with Putin.
Russian media coverage has a limited impact on the U.S. political debate, even if stories by RT and Sputnik can circulate widely across Twitter and Facebook.
But shifts in how Russia reports on U.S. politics can offer important clues about Putin's latest views of America.
And at the moment, Putin seems to be reveling in the sense of crisis gripping U.S. politics.
“Are Trump’s policies dividing America more than ever?” asked an RT headline last month.
At the same time, Russian coverage of Trump himself took a more critical turn almost immediately after his inauguration. “Trump Draws Noticeably Smaller Inauguration Crowd Than Predecessor,” Sputnik headlined on January 21.
Other stories in various Russian outlets have spotlighted Trump’s dismal poll numbers, criticized his immigration crackdown, and even made fun of his handshake. Russian television has replayed biting Saturday Night Live sketches spoofing the new president.
Source
|
On March 07 2017 21:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:At the same time, Russian coverage of Trump himself took a more critical turn almost immediately after his inauguration. “Trump Draws Noticeably Smaller Inauguration Crowd Than Predecessor,” Sputnik headlined on January 21. Source
Didn't Russia get the memo that that is fake news?
|
On March 07 2017 15:13 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2017 13:48 xDaunt wrote:On March 07 2017 13:44 Mohdoo wrote:On March 07 2017 13:37 xDaunt wrote:On March 07 2017 13:34 Mohdoo wrote:On March 07 2017 13:16 xDaunt wrote:
The GOP healthcare bill is basically one last attempt to salvage a predominantly privatized health insurance system. I doubt it will work, because the soft penalties on failing to sign up for health insurance aren't enough to coerce the healthy population to sign up. Once you mandate coverage for preexisting conditions, the whole concept of health insurance goes out the window. It feels like you're saying preexisting conditions isn't something that should be covered. Am I wrong here? In a privatized health insurance system, they should not be covered. So how do we prevent someone from essentially dying because they happened to get laid off after being sick? In a private system, the old coverage pays for the care for any condition arising before the termination of coverage. Any new coverage will take care of any condition arising after the adoption of the new coverage. As long as there's no gap in coverage, then the subject person is covered. Of course, this requires personal fiscal responsibility, which we no longer expect of people in this country. Personal anything responsibility is like advocating slavery these days. But pre-existing conditions coverage and granny getting laid off and missing a payment just before the cancer diagnosis is the bedrock foundation of health insurance systems these days.
Social Darwinism rears its ugly head again.
Repeat after me: poverty is not a choice. Almost nobody chooses to be poor. Uninsured poor people aren't so because they're lazy.
On March 07 2017 20:59 Slydie wrote:
The US has by far the most expensive healtchare system in the world, but not the best one by any standards. You are stuck in your own mess, and it will be almost impossible to get out of it. Too bad Americans fail to see the absurdity which is needing a healthinsurance to get treatment.
This is what it comes down to. Any rational person can look at Canada, Europe, Japan, and see that the USA is getting shafted. We're spending more per capita for less coverage so UnitedHealth's shareholders can get rich.
|
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) on Tuesday morning brushed off concerns about the access low-income Americans will have to health insurance with Republicans' plan to replace Obamacare, arguing that Americans will just have to choose between a new phone and health insurance.
"Americans have choices. And they've got to make a choice. And so maybe rather than getting that new iPhone that they just love and they want to go spend hundreds of dollars on that, maybe they should invest in their own health care. They've got to make those decisions themselves," Chaffetz said on CNN's "New Day" when pressed on insurance for low-income Americans under the latest draft legislation to replace the Affordable Care Act.
Chaffetz made the comments as CNN's Alisyn Camerota quizzed the congressman on coverage under Republicans' plan to replace Obamacare. She noted that the Kaiser Foundation's Larry Levitt said Monday that the GOP plan would likely leave more people uninsured.
In response, Chaffetz noted that the plan will give states more flexibility and said that the plan will "make sure that people have access to the quality health care that they want."
Later, Camerota asked one final time whether the Republican plan would result in more access but less coverage.
"Well, yes. Yes, I think that's fair," Chaffetz replied before adding the caveat that there hasn't yet been a full analysis of the bill.
"But we're just now consuming this. So, more of the analysis has to happen. That's premature," he said. "We just saw the bill as of yesterday. We're just starting to consume it. We will have to look at how that analysis moves forward."
Source
|
"I am now homeless and my life has turned to shit, the state/goverment paid thousands of dollars for my emergency treatment that hasn't cured me but at least kept me alive. Trying to pay it back broke me, I lost my house and everything else i owned, but at least i had a new phone, it was a very nice phone, before i had to sell it für 1/10 of its price": Some guy that made a choice.
|
On March 07 2017 23:27 Velr wrote:
"I am now homeless and my life has turned to shit, the state/goverment paid thousands of dollars for my emergency treatment that hasn't cured me but at least kept me alive. Trying to pay it back broke me, I lost my house and everything else i owned, but at least i had a new phone, it was a very nice phone, before i had to sell it für 1/10 of ist price": Some guy that made a choice.
Relevant: https://satwcomic.com/taxes-healthcare-and-culture
User was warned for this post
|
After a cursory reading of the act plus a dozen articles on the subject, there is no need to go into extreme detail on this thing; it has a 0% chance of being passed.
It goes against perhaps every single thing Trump has ever promised for the ACA replacement. Millions will lose coverage. Premiums will go up. Medicaid will be thrashed. Medicare demise is accelerated. There is nothing about cross state line coverage. The people hurt most will be Trump voters. Vox does a good job of pointing out the many hypocritical aspects as well.
Then there is the issue that it is financially a black hole with impossible to cover funding gaps. Peter Sunderman put it best: "it's not clear what problems this particular bill would actually solve."
|
The various things Trump has promised are mutually contradictory. He wants everybody to have health insurance AND not raise taxes AND health insurance companies to remain private.
Well. There is one thing here he's never promised on. I suppose he never said he didn't want the federal gov't to default on its spending every year. Maybe that's his plan.
Vis-a-vis the welfare state, it's not Trump that concerns me. It's Paul Ryan. He's openly said he's going to start eliminating healthcare subsidies and social security because he doesn't think they actually help poor people. That right there is what everybody should be alarmed about.
|
Donald Trump has styled himself as a hardline opponent of the Iranian regime, but new details of a business deal in Azerbaijan point to his organization’s relationship with an oligarch’s family that has close links to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.
A New Yorker feature alleges that indirect ties between Trump’s business interests and the Iranian regime, which he is currently railing against in office, may have been closer than previously believed before he ascended to the presidency.
It reports that the Trump Organization, the business that Trump handed to his sons when he was inaugurated in January, had conducted business with the Mammadov family, specifically “close relatives of Ziya Mammadov,” the Transport Minister of Azerbaijan.
He is a powerful Azerbaijani oligarch that has sat in the Transport Ministry since 2002, and the New Yorker alleges that he has financial ties to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, the operations arm of the Iranian military tasked with the defending the country internally and externally. Last month, anonymous officials within Trump’s team told the Wall Street Journal he was considering classifying the force as an extremist organization.
The allegations center on the Trump Tower Baku in the Azerbaijani capital, a $35 million project that was slated to become a large tower of apartments. Construction began in 2008, with the Trumps joining the project in 2012, the report says. It was set to include a Trump hotel but Trump’s business was not leading the project, and any financial investments in the project have not been disclosed.]
But an Azerbaijani lawyer involved in the project said Trump’s staff paid visits to the construction site “at least monthly.” The most high-profile Trump Organization to visit Baku was the president’s daughter: Ivanka, who traveled in October 2014.
“We were always following their instructions. We were in constant contact with the Trump Organization. They approved the smallest details,” the lawyer told the New Yorker .
But, as Trump prepared for the presidency after his election win in November, he canceled the deal. The agreement was a licensing deal, for those behind the project to use the Trump name. Those people were the Mammadovs.
The report says Mammadov in 2008 approved contracts to Iranian construction company Azarpassillo, headed by Keyumars Darvishi. The link is significant as Darvishi was once the chairman of Raman, the Iranian construction firm that acted as a direct arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. The report alleges that the Azarpassillo company essentially acts as a front for the Iranian force.
Before the Trump administration had itself placed sanctions on several Iranian entities last month following a ballistic missile test, the U.S. State Department in 2007 blacklisted the Quds Force, the foreign operations arm of the IRGC, for “its support of terrorism.” Iran is accused of supporting Shiite proxy groups across the Middle East, such as the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, the Houthis in Yemen and Shia opposition groups in Bahrain.
It is also accused of funding Sunni militant group Hamas in the Gaza Strip, which is also opposed to Israel. Iran considers Israel its foremost enemy besides Saudi Arabia.
But the Trump Organization’s chief legal officer Alan Garten told the New Yorker that the company used a third-party company to conduct due diligence into the Mammadov family, yet no troubling information emerged. Despite this due diligence, WikiLeaks cables leaked in 2009 showed a U.S. diplomat calling Mammadov “notoriously corrupt even for Azerbaijan.” These allegations, of the Trump Organization’s contract with a figure with close links to the Iranian regime, will again shine light on the president’s business dealings, in spite of his bellicose rhetoric towards the Islamic Republic.
Source
|
On March 07 2017 23:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) on Tuesday morning brushed off concerns about the access low-income Americans will have to health insurance with Republicans' plan to replace Obamacare, arguing that Americans will just have to choose between a new phone and health insurance.
"Americans have choices. And they've got to make a choice. And so maybe rather than getting that new iPhone that they just love and they want to go spend hundreds of dollars on that, maybe they should invest in their own health care. They've got to make those decisions themselves," Chaffetz said on CNN's "New Day" when pressed on insurance for low-income Americans under the latest draft legislation to replace the Affordable Care Act.
Chaffetz made the comments as CNN's Alisyn Camerota quizzed the congressman on coverage under Republicans' plan to replace Obamacare. She noted that the Kaiser Foundation's Larry Levitt said Monday that the GOP plan would likely leave more people uninsured.
In response, Chaffetz noted that the plan will give states more flexibility and said that the plan will "make sure that people have access to the quality health care that they want."
Later, Camerota asked one final time whether the Republican plan would result in more access but less coverage.
"Well, yes. Yes, I think that's fair," Chaffetz replied before adding the caveat that there hasn't yet been a full analysis of the bill.
"But we're just now consuming this. So, more of the analysis has to happen. That's premature," he said. "We just saw the bill as of yesterday. We're just starting to consume it. We will have to look at how that analysis moves forward." Source
What a beyond stupid response. Even if Apple was to outApple themselves and make the new iPhone $900, it still wouldn't even cover 3 months under my current healthcare plan. Dude is so detatched from reality.
|
On March 07 2017 23:40 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2017 23:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) on Tuesday morning brushed off concerns about the access low-income Americans will have to health insurance with Republicans' plan to replace Obamacare, arguing that Americans will just have to choose between a new phone and health insurance.
"Americans have choices. And they've got to make a choice. And so maybe rather than getting that new iPhone that they just love and they want to go spend hundreds of dollars on that, maybe they should invest in their own health care. They've got to make those decisions themselves," Chaffetz said on CNN's "New Day" when pressed on insurance for low-income Americans under the latest draft legislation to replace the Affordable Care Act.
Chaffetz made the comments as CNN's Alisyn Camerota quizzed the congressman on coverage under Republicans' plan to replace Obamacare. She noted that the Kaiser Foundation's Larry Levitt said Monday that the GOP plan would likely leave more people uninsured.
In response, Chaffetz noted that the plan will give states more flexibility and said that the plan will "make sure that people have access to the quality health care that they want."
Later, Camerota asked one final time whether the Republican plan would result in more access but less coverage.
"Well, yes. Yes, I think that's fair," Chaffetz replied before adding the caveat that there hasn't yet been a full analysis of the bill.
"But we're just now consuming this. So, more of the analysis has to happen. That's premature," he said. "We just saw the bill as of yesterday. We're just starting to consume it. We will have to look at how that analysis moves forward." Source What a beyond stupid response. Even if Apple was to outApple themselves and make the new iPhone $900, it still wouldn't even cover 3 months under my current healthcare plan. Dude is so detatched from reality.
But the general message holds truth. If people had the choice between health care and iphone, a huge majority would go for the phone lol
|
On March 07 2017 23:44 sharkie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2017 23:40 Gahlo wrote:On March 07 2017 23:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) on Tuesday morning brushed off concerns about the access low-income Americans will have to health insurance with Republicans' plan to replace Obamacare, arguing that Americans will just have to choose between a new phone and health insurance.
"Americans have choices. And they've got to make a choice. And so maybe rather than getting that new iPhone that they just love and they want to go spend hundreds of dollars on that, maybe they should invest in their own health care. They've got to make those decisions themselves," Chaffetz said on CNN's "New Day" when pressed on insurance for low-income Americans under the latest draft legislation to replace the Affordable Care Act.
Chaffetz made the comments as CNN's Alisyn Camerota quizzed the congressman on coverage under Republicans' plan to replace Obamacare. She noted that the Kaiser Foundation's Larry Levitt said Monday that the GOP plan would likely leave more people uninsured.
In response, Chaffetz noted that the plan will give states more flexibility and said that the plan will "make sure that people have access to the quality health care that they want."
Later, Camerota asked one final time whether the Republican plan would result in more access but less coverage.
"Well, yes. Yes, I think that's fair," Chaffetz replied before adding the caveat that there hasn't yet been a full analysis of the bill.
"But we're just now consuming this. So, more of the analysis has to happen. That's premature," he said. "We just saw the bill as of yesterday. We're just starting to consume it. We will have to look at how that analysis moves forward." Source What a beyond stupid response. Even if Apple was to outApple themselves and make the new iPhone $900, it still wouldn't even cover 3 months under my current healthcare plan. Dude is so detatched from reality. But the general message holds truth. If people had the choice between health care and iphone, a huge majority would go for the phone lol
Not equatable things unless the coverage year round costs as much as the phone. Especially when model hoppers trade in their old phones for a sizeable rebate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
