Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
But how affordable is the "Affordable Care Act". What were you premiums and deductibles before Obama Care? Obama Care made health insurance very expensive for everyone except for the "lazy and on welfare".
It’s not. They did everything to improve access, except for the most important thing. Deregulation. Deregulate the insurance companies so they can sell across state lines without having to set up a corporation in every state where they operate thereby removing billions in overhead costs. It’s a $1.4 trillion dollar a year industry with overhead costs in the neighborhood of 30% when you consider administrative costs. Then do the same for all other insurance and you’ll solve the cost of high risk areas whose premiums have skyrocketed in recent years. You have to spread the costs as far and wide as possible to reduce cost.

Think the phone companies and the airlines.
 
Last edited:
One of the reasons I rejected the Democratic Party long ago is that they think hating white people is a good thing and that they're personally noble and superior people for engaging in that particular kind of racism.

Ok? Not sure what this has to do with my comment, which was pointing out the obvious reality—which the regime is fully open about—that they’re targeting only brown people for deportation while explicitly allowing white people to stay and/or claim asylum.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Edd70
But how affordable is the "Affordable Care Act". What were you premiums and deductibles before Obama Care? Obama Care made health insurance very expensive for everyone except for the "lazy and on welfare".

It’s been proven time and time again that the ACA reduced the rate of increase of healthcare costs. It also allowed millions more to get insured (which lowers costs overall bc emergency care is way more expensive than regular preventive care), allowed kids to stay insured far longer, and prevented sick people from being dumped by their provider (you used to be unable to get health insurance if you were sick!).
 
They’re targeting illegals. Period.

Except they aren’t, which has been determined by literally dozens of federal courts.

Also interesting how quickly it went from “we’re only going after violent criminals” to “everyone here illegally is a violent criminal.” Next it’ll be “US citizens can be denaturalized and deported.”
 
Same question. Is your side the only people?

Of course, even a large chunk of his own voters disapprove of him demolishing the East Wing, so “the people” here is the usual ~30% of voters and an even smaller percent of all citizens.
 
Except they aren’t, which has been determined by literally dozens of federal courts.

Also interesting how quickly it went from “we’re only going after violent criminals” to “everyone here illegally is a violent criminal.” Next it’ll be “US citizens can be denaturalized and deported.”
False. 96% of illegals are from countries where you’d be hard pressed to find a white person walking around who isn’t on vacation. Probably because if they went there illegally, they’d be deported. Or are you this unfamiliar with immigration policy around the world?

 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnWick1954
This is exactly what I meant. It's not a partisan thing, but people make it into one.
Well, political and partisan are different things. 😁

I think you’re trying to dismiss legitimate problems as partisan bickering. I don’t object to the situation because it’s a Republican in office, I object because it was not approved by Congress. I object because we were lied to right up until the historic East Wing was demolished. I object because it’s something that belongs in a palace, not the people’s house. And I primarily object because its primary purpose is and will continue to be to allow rich people to curry favor with the president.

Are any of those partisan objections? I can’t see how.
 
It’s been proven time and time again that the ACA reduced the rate of increase of healthcare costs. It also allowed millions more to get insured (which lowers costs overall bc emergency care is way more expensive than regular preventive care), allowed kids to stay insured far longer, and prevented sick people from being dumped by their provider (you used to be unable to get health insurance if you were sick!).
ACA is a failure. It only brought more people to the insurance market on a micro scale. This resulted in short term stabilization. When it was enacted, my insurance premium went from $80 a month to $176. It’s now at $240 and next year is $273. Deductibles and out of pocket expenses have doubled since pre ACA.

Tell me ACA reduced costs again or how you weren’t paying insurance payments before ACA.
 
Last edited:
Well, political and partisan are different things. 😁

I think you’re trying to dismiss legitimate problems as partisan bickering. I don’t object to the situation because it’s a Republican in office, I object because it was not approved by Congress. I object because we were lied to right up until the historic East Wing was demolished. I object because it’s something that belongs in a palace, not the people’s house. And I primarily object because its primary purpose is and will continue to be to allow rich people to curry favor with the president.

Are any of those partisan objections? I can’t see how.
Next time do better than this:

 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnWick1954
ACA is a failure. It only brought more people to the insurance market on a micro scale. This resulted in short term stabilization. When it was enacted, my insurance premium went from $80 a month to $176. It’s now at $240 and next year is $273. Deductibles and out of pocket expense has doubled since pre ACA.

Tell me ACA reduced costs again or how you weren’t paying insurance payments before ACA.

Of course you’re incapable of looking at or caring about anything except your own circumstances.
 
Of course you’re incapable of looking at or caring about anything except your own circumstances.
I’m providing facts from a personal experience and pointing to the real problem (cost reduction) which has yet to be resolved. If ACA were done properly cost would have come down and it’s only gone up. And everyone I work with had their premiums triple. Tell me how that’s my own circumstances again and not everyone around me? Everyone I know saw their premiums skyrocket after ACA. Many shifted from a PPO to an HMO because of cost so they lost standard of care along with it.

So, were you paying for insurance before ACA or not?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JohnWick1954
I have no idea what that has to do with what I said.
She’s the reason he’s there and by extension, she’s the reason Trump is building a new Ballroom. She was easily the weakest candidate either party has put up since Bob Dole. Of course, Sarah Palin, but she was the VP candidate. Equally stupid though. I barely take Trump seriously, but there will never be a point in my life where I can take Harris seriously. My belief is that politics has become so ugly, that the real people we need to lead no longer exist in politics. They are doing more productive things with their lives.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Morod
She’s the reason he’s there and by extension, she’s the reason Trump is building a new Ballroom. She was easily the weakest candidate either party has put up since Bob Dole. Of course, Sarah Palin, but she was the VP candidate. Equally stupid though.
No. The people who voted for him are why he’s there. He’s the reason the ballroom is being built. Personal responsibility and all that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Timo_Existencia
No. The people who voted for him are why he’s there. He’s the reason the ballroom is being built. Personal responsibility and all that.
No, it was her. She was unelectable. As was Hillary for other various reasons. She’s just a female version of Trump. A serious candidate would have beat Trump. Having a primary would have likely produced a different outcome, so there’s plenty of blame for Biden and everyone else in the party to go around. Not unlike McCain choosing Palin. It was over the moment that decision was made. People didn’t vote for Harris because she was seen as a great leader, they voted for her because she wasn’t Trump. Hillary was a power hungry narcissist, she just had 20 years of people observing her politically. The whole “first female President” boosted her performance. Trump as well, but was more personable, a celebrity and wasn’t a politician. Harris thinks she was entitled to be President. Likely because of how she came up through California politics. She felt it was her turn. That doesn’t work outside the bubble. If you take Trump out of the 2024 equation, pretty much any other Republican candidate would have crushed her. Vance isn’t a serious person either. He’ll get crushed unless the Dems put up another Harris.

I like Haley and Shapiro at the top for the next cycle. It would be a civil affair, which means it won’t happen. We’ll probably get Eric Trump and Newsom. Rinse, wash, repeat.
 
Last edited:
ACA is a failure. It only brought more people to the insurance market on a micro scale. This resulted in short term stabilization. When it was enacted, my insurance premium went from $80 a month to $176. It’s now at $240 and next year is $273. Deductibles and out of pocket expenses have doubled since pre ACA.

Tell me ACA reduced costs again or how you weren’t paying insurance payments before ACA.
Ehh.. that’s a bit reductive. Baby, bath water. ACA definitely has failure points, tho, I agree.

Problems with it included the revision of reducing the lack-of-coverage penalty to $0. That was the cyanide pill, which was exactly what the republicans wanted. Crush the favorable thing, so their insurance donors are happy.

When the penalty was in place, it was a source of revenue (arguably a tax, but definitely a fund raiser). The “young invincibles” didn’t want to pay either way, and they couldn’t see beyond their own collective hubris (but did we at that age? Nope.). Some chose to pay the penalty, but it didn’t matter either way. It still raised funds. That kept your original costs low. As the penalty died, so did the pool of the insured. That is what raised your rates. This is where the ACA didn’t have enough bite to it. Marketplace providers were allowed to exit, and not bound by any legal obligations to stay.

It’s crappy, and it sucks…and I feel bad for you (and family, if that applies). I agree with your frustration that it’s a raw deal. Maybe it’s slightly, if only, better than direct negotiation with each doctor, and maybe better than a full ER bill. Maybe it’s helped keep your prescription costs in check, too. Maybe(?).

But the ACA as a whole isn’t an abject failure. A huge deal was the removal of pre-existing condition exclusions (those of us with MS, or cancer, or type 1 diabetes, or whatever selection insurers want to pick). It also increased standard of care, especially for women. It has helped save lives.

It still bites, tho, that your premiums are so high. You could try calling your local Congress critter or senator and complain to them. They are supposed to care about you, after all. (I know, I know… “supposed to”… I said “try”).

In the meantime, I hope you’re able to manage the costs for yourself and you’re able to stay healthy. At least then you can say you’re not part of the problem!
 
No, it was her. She was unelectable. As was Hillary for other various reasons. She’s just a female version of Trump. A serious candidate would have beat Trump. Having a primary would have likely produced a different outcome, so there’s plenty of blame for Biden and everyone else in the party to go around. Not unlike McCain choosing Palin. It was over the moment that decision was made. People didn’t vote for Harris because she was seen as a great leader, they voted for her because she wasn’t Trump. Hillary was a power hungry narcissist, she just had 20 years of people observing her politically. The whole “first female President” boosted her performance. Trump as well, but was more personable, a celebrity and wasn’t a politician. Harris thinks she was entitled to be President. Likely because of how she came up through California politics. She felt it was her turn. That doesn’t work outside the bubble. If you take Trump out of the 2024 equation, pretty much any other Republican candidate would have crushed her. Vance isn’t a serious person either. He’ll get crushed unless the Dems put up another Harris.

I like Haley and Shapiro at the top for the next cycle. It would be a civil affair, which means it won’t happen. We’ll probably get Eric Trump and Newsom. Rinse, wash, repeat.

Aye. She was utterly unelectable. Nate Silver had done an extensive review of her failed campaign. He definitely punches above the belt and turned in some sobering reporting on it. I’ve even been tempted to pay up to subscribe to his Substack for it.
 


Apple is one of several tech companies that will contribute to the construction of U.S. President Donald Trump's 90,000-square-foot ballroom, reports CNN.

trump-white-house-ballroom.jpg

Construction began on the ballroom this week, and the White House's east wing was torn down. Trump claims that the ballroom will cost $350 million, and that it will be privately funded through donations. The cost has already increased $150 million over the figures that Trump previously quoted.

Other tech companies that have donated to the ballroom construction include Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, and HP.

There is no word on the specific amount that Apple donated toward the project.

Update: The total ballroom cost has been updated to $350 million, after Trump announced new pricing on Thursday evening.

Note: Due to the political or social nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Political News forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.

Article Link: Apple Donating to Trump's $350M White House Ballroom Project
Wtf is this 1700 French architects. Versailles hall lol.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.