Is This A Thing?

[LoneLaugher]

It seems as though the guy who Trump wants to head up HHS has got some questions to answer related to his investment portfolio.

Donald Trump’s Pick for Health Secretary Traded Medical Stocks While in House

Now...lets be clear. I oppose this man for HHS secretary based on his staunch opposition to the ACA and his history of doing the bidding of lobbyists in the health care industry. But...I wouldn't be suggesting that Trump rescind his nomination for those reasons.

Insider trading, however, ought to give Trump pause.

 

[Disir]

Apparently it's become acceptable since Tom Delay.

 

[Andylusion]

It seems as though the guy who Trump wants to head up HHS has got some questions to answer related to his investment portfolio.

Donald Trump’s Pick for Health Secretary Traded Medical Stocks While in House

Now...lets be clear. I oppose this man for HHS secretary based on his staunch opposition to the ACA and his history of doing the bidding of lobbyists in the health care industry. But...I wouldn't be suggesting that Trump rescind his nomination for those reasons.

Insider trading, however, ought to give Trump pause.

I'm confused.

You are saying he engaged in insider trading, which is not what the article suggests.

The article says he traded in stock while a member of congress, which was working on legislation that could affect stock price.

Insider trading is working at the company, when you have company inside information that isn't public.

Legislation on capital hill isn't inside information. Everyone can see what legislation is being discussed, what amendments are proposed, and what bills are being passed. There is nothing that isn't public.

Moreover, if you are to consider all members of congress that have stock in a company, that are working legislation that could affect that companies share price, to be insider trading, then pretty much every single person in government should be imprisoned.

No one in government doesn't own stock. And no one in government doesn't work on legislation that could directly affect that stock.

Do you realize that likely the biggest Corporation to get various government contracts, isn't Halliburton, or Raytheon. It's General Electric. More members of our government own stock in General Electric, than any other company in the world.

Almost half the government should be tried for insider trading by your standard.

And further, these are only the people we know about. How many have blind trusts, where the investments are kept completely hidden from public view?

But honestly, the most openly questionable deals, have been proudly public, and no one cared.

For example, when Al Gore VP in the corrupt Clinton administration years, arranged the sale of Elk Hill Oil Leases to Occidental Petroleum... a firm he happened to have $100,000 worth of stock in, that instantly grew to nearly a million after the news of the oil leases went public.

Funny how the left-wing didn't seem at all worried about corruption, even from a hypocrite like Al Gore completely against oil until he profited from it, but now suddenly the worry of corruption is back? Selective outrage it would seem.

 

[LoneLaugher]

It seems as though the guy who Trump wants to head up HHS has got some questions to answer related to his investment portfolio.

Donald Trump’s Pick for Health Secretary Traded Medical Stocks While in House

Now...lets be clear. I oppose this man for HHS secretary based on his staunch opposition to the ACA and his history of doing the bidding of lobbyists in the health care industry. But...I wouldn't be suggesting that Trump rescind his nomination for those reasons.

Insider trading, however, ought to give Trump pause.

I'm confused.

You are saying he engaged in insider trading, which is not what the article suggests.

The article says he traded in stock while a member of congress, which was working on legislation that could affect stock price.

Insider trading is working at the company, when you have company inside information that isn't public.

Legislation on capital hill isn't inside information. Everyone can see what legislation is being discussed, what amendments are proposed, and what bills are being passed. There is nothing that isn't public.

Moreover, if you are to consider all members of congress that have stock in a company, that are working legislation that could affect that companies share price, to be insider trading, then pretty much every single person in government should be imprisoned.

No one in government doesn't own stock. And no one in government doesn't work on legislation that could directly affect that stock.

Do you realize that likely the biggest Corporation to get various government contracts, isn't Halliburton, or Raytheon. It's General Electric. More members of our government own stock in General Electric, than any other company in the world.

Almost half the government should be tried for insider trading by your standard.

And further, these are only the people we know about. How many have blind trusts, where the investments are kept completely hidden from public view?

But honestly, the most openly questionable deals, have been proudly public, and no one cared.

For example, when Al Gore VP in the corrupt Clinton administration years, arranged the sale of Elk Hill Oil Leases to Occidental Petroleum... a firm he happened to have $100,000 worth of stock in, that instantly grew to nearly a million after the news of the oil leases went public.

Funny how the left-wing didn't seem at all worried about corruption, even from a hypocrite like Al Gore completely against oil until he profited from it, but now suddenly the worry of corruption is back? Selective outrage it would seem.

I'm so pleased that you focused in on the phrase that I used before you went on your rant of deflection.

If you know something that the public doesn't know and use that info to structure your investments.....it is known as insider trading. You may question whether or not Price did this....and we won't know for certain until there is some kind of investigation. But....you need not play word games and then avoid the subject in your insane reflex to defend a nutbag.

Try harder.

 

[Andylusion]

It seems as though the guy who Trump wants to head up HHS has got some questions to answer related to his investment portfolio.

Donald Trump’s Pick for Health Secretary Traded Medical Stocks While in House

Now...lets be clear. I oppose this man for HHS secretary based on his staunch opposition to the ACA and his history of doing the bidding of lobbyists in the health care industry. But...I wouldn't be suggesting that Trump rescind his nomination for those reasons.

Insider trading, however, ought to give Trump pause.

I'm confused.

You are saying he engaged in insider trading, which is not what the article suggests.

The article says he traded in stock while a member of congress, which was working on legislation that could affect stock price.

Insider trading is working at the company, when you have company inside information that isn't public.

Legislation on capital hill isn't inside information. Everyone can see what legislation is being discussed, what amendments are proposed, and what bills are being passed. There is nothing that isn't public.

Moreover, if you are to consider all members of congress that have stock in a company, that are working legislation that could affect that companies share price, to be insider trading, then pretty much every single person in government should be imprisoned.

No one in government doesn't own stock. And no one in government doesn't work on legislation that could directly affect that stock.

Do you realize that likely the biggest Corporation to get various government contracts, isn't Halliburton, or Raytheon. It's General Electric. More members of our government own stock in General Electric, than any other company in the world.

Almost half the government should be tried for insider trading by your standard.

And further, these are only the people we know about. How many have blind trusts, where the investments are kept completely hidden from public view?

But honestly, the most openly questionable deals, have been proudly public, and no one cared.

For example, when Al Gore VP in the corrupt Clinton administration years, arranged the sale of Elk Hill Oil Leases to Occidental Petroleum... a firm he happened to have $100,000 worth of stock in, that instantly grew to nearly a million after the news of the oil leases went public.

Funny how the left-wing didn't seem at all worried about corruption, even from a hypocrite like Al Gore completely against oil until he profited from it, but now suddenly the worry of corruption is back? Selective outrage it would seem.

I'm so pleased that you focused in on the phrase that I used before you went on your rant of deflection.

If you know something that the public doesn't know and use that info to structure your investments.....it is known as insider trading. You may question whether or not Price did this....and we won't know for certain until there is some kind of investigation. But....you need not play word games and then avoid the subject in your insane reflex to defend a nutbag.

Try harder.

The irony is, I explained all that, while you stopped at the first line and didn't read the rest. Then you went on to accuse me, of doing, what you in fact did. Hypocrite much?

I am well aware of what insider trading is. Either prove it, or don't say it.

 

[eagle1462010]

Tom Price on Health Care

Tom Price on the Issues

H.R.3400 - 111th Congress (2009-2010): Empowering Patients First Act

H.R.3400 - Empowering Patients First Act
Empowering Patients First Act - Wikipedia

 

[LoneLaugher]

It seems as though the guy who Trump wants to head up HHS has got some questions to answer related to his investment portfolio.

Donald Trump’s Pick for Health Secretary Traded Medical Stocks While in House

Now...lets be clear. I oppose this man for HHS secretary based on his staunch opposition to the ACA and his history of doing the bidding of lobbyists in the health care industry. But...I wouldn't be suggesting that Trump rescind his nomination for those reasons.

Insider trading, however, ought to give Trump pause.

I'm confused.

You are saying he engaged in insider trading, which is not what the article suggests.

The article says he traded in stock while a member of congress, which was working on legislation that could affect stock price.

Insider trading is working at the company, when you have company inside information that isn't public.

Legislation on capital hill isn't inside information. Everyone can see what legislation is being discussed, what amendments are proposed, and what bills are being passed. There is nothing that isn't public.

Moreover, if you are to consider all members of congress that have stock in a company, that are working legislation that could affect that companies share price, to be insider trading, then pretty much every single person in government should be imprisoned.

No one in government doesn't own stock. And no one in government doesn't work on legislation that could directly affect that stock.

Do you realize that likely the biggest Corporation to get various government contracts, isn't Halliburton, or Raytheon. It's General Electric. More members of our government own stock in General Electric, than any other company in the world.

Almost half the government should be tried for insider trading by your standard.

And further, these are only the people we know about. How many have blind trusts, where the investments are kept completely hidden from public view?

But honestly, the most openly questionable deals, have been proudly public, and no one cared.

For example, when Al Gore VP in the corrupt Clinton administration years, arranged the sale of Elk Hill Oil Leases to Occidental Petroleum... a firm he happened to have $100,000 worth of stock in, that instantly grew to nearly a million after the news of the oil leases went public.

Funny how the left-wing didn't seem at all worried about corruption, even from a hypocrite like Al Gore completely against oil until he profited from it, but now suddenly the worry of corruption is back? Selective outrage it would seem.

I'm so pleased that you focused in on the phrase that I used before you went on your rant of deflection.

If you know something that the public doesn't know and use that info to structure your investments.....it is known as insider trading. You may question whether or not Price did this....and we won't know for certain until there is some kind of investigation. But....you need not play word games and then avoid the subject in your insane reflex to defend a nutbag.

Try harder.

The irony is, I explained all that, while you stopped at the first line and didn't read the rest. Then you went on to accuse me, of doing, what you in fact did. Hypocrite much?

I am well aware of what insider trading is. Either prove it, or don't say it.

You didn't explain anything. You deflected. It is boring.

And...since you ask....yes. I am often a hypocrite. I try not to make it my calling card, though. You won't find me defending and deflecting every fucking time I see something that makes me uncomfortable.

Price has to answer some questions. That is all that I have said here. You don't agree. Fine. Al Gore has nothing to do with it.

 

[eagle1462010]

High-Risk Pools For Uninsurable Individuals

Discussion
Nearly four decades of experience with high-risk pools suggests they have the potential to provide health coverage to a substantial number of people with pre-existing conditions. State high-risk pools that existed prior to passage of the ACA covered over 200,000 people at their peak, and the temporary PCIP pool created as part of the ACA covered over 100,000 individuals.

These high-risk pools likely covered just a fraction of the number of people with pre-existing conditions who lacked insurance, due in part to design features that limited enrollment. State pools typically excluded coverage of services associated with pre-existing conditions for a period of time and charged premiums substantially in excess of what a typical person would pay in the non-group market. PCIP had fewer barriers to enrollment – charging standard premiums with no pre-existing condition exclusions – but it did restrict signups to people who had been uninsured for a least six months.

Even with these limitations, the government subsidies required to cover losses in these high-risk pools were substantial – over $1 billion per year in the state pools and about $2 billion in the final year of PCIP. A high-risk pool that had minimal barriers to enrollment could cost substantially more.





Alternate solutions to Obamacare were offered...........But the Dems refused to compromise and rammed the massive legislation down everyone throats with promises they never intended to keep..........Insurance costs have gone up.......people have lost their coverage.........and Insurance companies have left the exchanges...............

Obama and the Dems gave the people EMPTY PROMISES...........there are many ideas that if both sides sat down and actually compromised that could be done to lower costs.............The choice of HHS did push a bill as an alternate proposal...............gave ideas.............to a DEM CONTROLLED GOV'T WHO HAD NO INTENTIONS TO COMPROMISE...................

The Dems gave us this.................

 

[eagle1462010]

Summary of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 - Obamacare Facts

• Increasing tax credits to buy insurance
• Eliminating several of the special deals given to senators, such as Ben Nelson‘s “Cornhusker Kickback“
• Lowering the penalty for not buying insurance from $750 to $695
• Closing the Medicare Part D “donut hole” by 2020 and gives seniors a rebate of $250.
• Delaying the implementation on taxing “Cadillac health-care plans” until 2018
• Requiring doctors who treat Medicare patients be reimbursed at the full rate
• Setting up a medicare tax on the unearned incomes of families that earn more than $250,000 annually.
• Offering more generous subsidies to lower income groups. Households below 150% of the federal poverty level would pay 2% to 4% of their income on premiums. Health plans would cover 94% of the cost of benefits. Households with incomes from 150% to 400% of the federal poverty level ($88,200 for a family of four) would pay on a sliding scale from 4% to 9.8% of their income on premiums, rest will be covered by government advanceable, refundable tax credit. Health plans would cover 70% of the cost of the benefits.
• penalty for a company with more than 50 workers not offering health care coverage after 2014, of $2,000 for each full-time worker above 30 employees. For example, an employer with 53 workers will pay the penalty for 23 workers, or $46,000.
• increasing Medicaid payment rates to primary care doctors to match Medicare payment rates, which are higher, in 2013 and 2014.
• the federal government paying all costs of expanding Medicaid under the reform until 2016, 95% in 2017, 94% in 2018, 93% in 2019, and 90% thereafter. Some states that already insure childless adults under Medicaid would receive more federal money for covering that group through 2018.
• a 50% discount on brand-name drugs for Medicare patients beginning in 2011. By 2020, the government would pay to provide up to 75% discount on brand-name and generic drugs, eventually closing the coverage gap.
• extending the ban on lifetime limits and rescission of coverage to all existing health plans within six months after signing into Law

 

[Toro]

It seems as though the guy who Trump wants to head up HHS has got some questions to answer related to his investment portfolio.

Donald Trump’s Pick for Health Secretary Traded Medical Stocks While in House

Now...lets be clear. I oppose this man for HHS secretary based on his staunch opposition to the ACA and his history of doing the bidding of lobbyists in the health care industry. But...I wouldn't be suggesting that Trump rescind his nomination for those reasons.

Insider trading, however, ought to give Trump pause.

It's not insider trading.

Insider trading does not apply to the government

Edited to include "not."

 

[eagle1462010]

Many plans and legislation have been proposed during Obama..............None have been accepted........NO COMPROMISE EVER OFFERED............The Dems have Stone Walled and Tabled every legislative attempt to fix health care...........stating OBAMACARE OR NOTHING.......................

Obamacare has failed................Many offers and ideas are on the table..........I have shown 2 examples.............the last one coming from a Constitutionalist to limit the price of insurance costs to all and includes massive cost measures for the poor............

I have shown High Risk pool ideas.........
Medical Tort reform ideas that make prices rise.........(no it doesn't mean you can't sue a doctor......most of these limit lawyers fees and still giver very reasonable amounts to victims of malpractice)

Get Tax Credits for getting insurance ideas...........tax credits can be advanced.........to pay for the following year..............

HSA's tax credits...............to save for the day you need medical treatment..........

Many ideas on the table...............THE DEMS WILL NOT COMPROMISE.......and the ACA IS A FAILURE.................

 

[Andylusion]

It seems as though the guy who Trump wants to head up HHS has got some questions to answer related to his investment portfolio.

Donald Trump’s Pick for Health Secretary Traded Medical Stocks While in House

Now...lets be clear. I oppose this man for HHS secretary based on his staunch opposition to the ACA and his history of doing the bidding of lobbyists in the health care industry. But...I wouldn't be suggesting that Trump rescind his nomination for those reasons.

Insider trading, however, ought to give Trump pause.

I'm confused.

You are saying he engaged in insider trading, which is not what the article suggests.

The article says he traded in stock while a member of congress, which was working on legislation that could affect stock price.

Insider trading is working at the company, when you have company inside information that isn't public.

Legislation on capital hill isn't inside information. Everyone can see what legislation is being discussed, what amendments are proposed, and what bills are being passed. There is nothing that isn't public.

Moreover, if you are to consider all members of congress that have stock in a company, that are working legislation that could affect that companies share price, to be insider trading, then pretty much every single person in government should be imprisoned.

No one in government doesn't own stock. And no one in government doesn't work on legislation that could directly affect that stock.

Do you realize that likely the biggest Corporation to get various government contracts, isn't Halliburton, or Raytheon. It's General Electric. More members of our government own stock in General Electric, than any other company in the world.

Almost half the government should be tried for insider trading by your standard.

And further, these are only the people we know about. How many have blind trusts, where the investments are kept completely hidden from public view?

But honestly, the most openly questionable deals, have been proudly public, and no one cared.

For example, when Al Gore VP in the corrupt Clinton administration years, arranged the sale of Elk Hill Oil Leases to Occidental Petroleum... a firm he happened to have $100,000 worth of stock in, that instantly grew to nearly a million after the news of the oil leases went public.

Funny how the left-wing didn't seem at all worried about corruption, even from a hypocrite like Al Gore completely against oil until he profited from it, but now suddenly the worry of corruption is back? Selective outrage it would seem.

I'm so pleased that you focused in on the phrase that I used before you went on your rant of deflection.

If you know something that the public doesn't know and use that info to structure your investments.....it is known as insider trading. You may question whether or not Price did this....and we won't know for certain until there is some kind of investigation. But....you need not play word games and then avoid the subject in your insane reflex to defend a nutbag.

Try harder.

The irony is, I explained all that, while you stopped at the first line and didn't read the rest. Then you went on to accuse me, of doing, what you in fact did. Hypocrite much?

I am well aware of what insider trading is. Either prove it, or don't say it.

You didn't explain anything. You deflected. It is boring.

And...since you ask....yes. I am often a hypocrite. I try not to make it my calling card, though. You won't find me defending and deflecting every fucking time I see something that makes me uncomfortable.

Price has to answer some questions. That is all that I have said here. You don't agree. Fine. Al Gore has nothing to do with it.

You just deflected again, while claiming I was deflecting.

You have to answer my questions. I proved he didn't engage in insider trading. You did not, because you could not, respond to that, and haven't made any attempt to justify your position yet.

When you do, the discussion will continue. Until then, all you can do is accuse others of what you have done in every single post thus far.

Either prove he engaged in insider trading, or you are a liar.

 

[Andylusion]

It seems as though the guy who Trump wants to head up HHS has got some questions to answer related to his investment portfolio.

Donald Trump’s Pick for Health Secretary Traded Medical Stocks While in House

Now...lets be clear. I oppose this man for HHS secretary based on his staunch opposition to the ACA and his history of doing the bidding of lobbyists in the health care industry. But...I wouldn't be suggesting that Trump rescind his nomination for those reasons.

Insider trading, however, ought to give Trump pause.

It's not insider trading.

Insider trading does not apply to the government

Edited to include "not."

Yeah, I explained that to him as well. All he'll do is accuse you of deflecting, while he deflects. I guess you pointing this out makes him uncomfortable, and attacking everyone who says it, is his knee-jerk reaction.

 

[Lewdog]

It seems as though the guy who Trump wants to head up HHS has got some questions to answer related to his investment portfolio.

Donald Trump’s Pick for Health Secretary Traded Medical Stocks While in House

Now...lets be clear. I oppose this man for HHS secretary based on his staunch opposition to the ACA and his history of doing the bidding of lobbyists in the health care industry. But...I wouldn't be suggesting that Trump rescind his nomination for those reasons.

Insider trading, however, ought to give Trump pause.

It's not insider trading.

Insider trading does not apply to the government

Edited to include "not."

Yes it does. STOCK Act - Wikipedia

 

[Andylusion]

It seems as though the guy who Trump wants to head up HHS has got some questions to answer related to his investment portfolio.

Donald Trump’s Pick for Health Secretary Traded Medical Stocks While in House

Now...lets be clear. I oppose this man for HHS secretary based on his staunch opposition to the ACA and his history of doing the bidding of lobbyists in the health care industry. But...I wouldn't be suggesting that Trump rescind his nomination for those reasons.

Insider trading, however, ought to give Trump pause.

It's not insider trading.

Insider trading does not apply to the government

Edited to include "not."

Yes it does. STOCK Act - Wikipedia

From your link:

"The bill prohibits the use of non-public information for private profit, including insider trading by members of Congress and other government employees."

The point of the original poster's link, said only that he was working on legislation that would affect the companies whose stock he owned.

Not that he had any non-public information. We all get the non-public information aspect. If someone inside the company tells you that the new contract with India fell through, and you sell off all your stock before that information is public, that is insider trading.

There is absolutely no evidence this happened.... at least not that I have seen yet from the original poster, or the link he posted.

Instead it only said he worked on legislation that affected stock price. That isn't insider trading, because everyone knows what bills are being worked on, what bills are introduced, and are amended, and voted on, and passed.

It is all public.

Thus, this is not insider trading.

If you have new evidence to the contrary, please provide it.

 

[Lewdog]

It seems as though the guy who Trump wants to head up HHS has got some questions to answer related to his investment portfolio.

Donald Trump’s Pick for Health Secretary Traded Medical Stocks While in House

Now...lets be clear. I oppose this man for HHS secretary based on his staunch opposition to the ACA and his history of doing the bidding of lobbyists in the health care industry. But...I wouldn't be suggesting that Trump rescind his nomination for those reasons.

Insider trading, however, ought to give Trump pause.

It's not insider trading.

Insider trading does not apply to the government

Edited to include "not."

Yes it does. STOCK Act - Wikipedia

From your link:

"The bill prohibits the use of non-public information for private profit, including insider trading by members of Congress and other government employees."

The point of the original poster's link, said only that he was working on legislation that would affect the companies whose stock he owned.

Not that he had any non-public information. We all get the non-public information aspect. If someone inside the company tells you that the new contract with India fell through, and you sell off all your stock before that information is public, that is insider trading.

There is absolutely no evidence this happened.... at least not that I have seen yet from the original poster, or the link he posted.

Instead it only said he worked on legislation that affected stock price. That isn't insider trading, because everyone knows what bills are being worked on, what bills are introduced, and are amended, and voted on, and passed.

It is all public.

Thus, this is not insider trading.

If you have new evidence to the contrary, please provide it.

It's not public at the time he is making his decisions. He's using his information of what is going to happen, and what WILL become public, BEFORE it becomes public...

 

[Andylusion]

It seems as though the guy who Trump wants to head up HHS has got some questions to answer related to his investment portfolio.

Donald Trump’s Pick for Health Secretary Traded Medical Stocks While in House

Now...lets be clear. I oppose this man for HHS secretary based on his staunch opposition to the ACA and his history of doing the bidding of lobbyists in the health care industry. But...I wouldn't be suggesting that Trump rescind his nomination for those reasons.

Insider trading, however, ought to give Trump pause.

It's not insider trading.

Insider trading does not apply to the government

Edited to include "not."

Yes it does. STOCK Act - Wikipedia

From your link:

"The bill prohibits the use of non-public information for private profit, including insider trading by members of Congress and other government employees."

The point of the original poster's link, said only that he was working on legislation that would affect the companies whose stock he owned.

Not that he had any non-public information. We all get the non-public information aspect. If someone inside the company tells you that the new contract with India fell through, and you sell off all your stock before that information is public, that is insider trading.

There is absolutely no evidence this happened.... at least not that I have seen yet from the original poster, or the link he posted.

Instead it only said he worked on legislation that affected stock price. That isn't insider trading, because everyone knows what bills are being worked on, what bills are introduced, and are amended, and voted on, and passed.

It is all public.

Thus, this is not insider trading.

If you have new evidence to the contrary, please provide it.

It's not public at the time he is making his decisions. He's using his information of what is going to happen, and what WILL become public, BEFORE it becomes public...

He is making decisions? I was not aware he had dictatorship powers.

Last I checked he had to submit a bill before congress. Last I checked, congress can vote up or down, or modify any bill in any number of ways, all of which are public.

You can track any bill from the moment it is introduced, publicly.

Countering Online Recruitment of Violent Extremists Act of 2016 (S. 2418)

This is a bill to authorize the department of homeland security, to establish a program for student developed anti-terrorism recruitment.

The bill was sent to committee where they do a report on various aspects of consequences of the bill, to give to the Senate, on what the bill will do.

Then they debate the bill. Then they vote on the bill.

Then it is sent to the House. The house may have a committee report on it, or they may use the Senate report to debate the bill.

In both the House and Senate, they can amend the bill, change it, modify it, add to it, take away from it.

If the bill is passed by both House and Senate, then if there are any differences between the House bill and the Senate bill, then they reconcile the bill.

IF they succeed in reconciling, then it is passed, and sent to the President who can sign it.

The bill I referred to above, was introduced in December of 2015. It's now still in Committee report. They have yet to debate it, amend it, change it modify it, or anything else, 12 months later.

Yet we know exactly what the bill says. You can read the original text. You can read the updated text. You can even read the Senate report on the bill.

When they debate the bill, you'll be able to read the amendments and even debate comments.

When it is passed, you'll be able to read the final text of the passed bill (assume it even passes).

Then the entire thing happens all over again for the house, and you can read the text at any time during that process.

.... now do tell... if you can.... where in this completely open and public system, do you suggest Tom Price had the ability to make decisions that were not public, that affected company stock prices?

Nowhere. There is nothing he would have known, that wasn't public, from the moment he introduced the bill. And given it can easily take 6 months to a year, for a bill to be passed, and given there is no way to know how the bill will ultimately turn out.... what specific non-public knowledge would he have, that would give him any real advantage in the market?

And if you consider simply introducing the bill, to be insider trading (because that's the only time he had non-public information, is before the bill is introduced)..... then effectively you are saying everyone in government is guilty of insider trading. They all pass bills every month, that can effect the value of stocks they hold, and they all hold stocks and trade routinely.

Now granted, maybe there is some information not shared by the article that was posted... but given what I know right now... that's nothing. Another witch hunt.

 

[LoneLaugher]

It seems as though the guy who Trump wants to head up HHS has got some questions to answer related to his investment portfolio.

Donald Trump’s Pick for Health Secretary Traded Medical Stocks While in House

Now...lets be clear. I oppose this man for HHS secretary based on his staunch opposition to the ACA and his history of doing the bidding of lobbyists in the health care industry. But...I wouldn't be suggesting that Trump rescind his nomination for those reasons.

Insider trading, however, ought to give Trump pause.

I'm confused.

You are saying he engaged in insider trading, which is not what the article suggests.

The article says he traded in stock while a member of congress, which was working on legislation that could affect stock price.

Insider trading is working at the company, when you have company inside information that isn't public.

Legislation on capital hill isn't inside information. Everyone can see what legislation is being discussed, what amendments are proposed, and what bills are being passed. There is nothing that isn't public.

Moreover, if you are to consider all members of congress that have stock in a company, that are working legislation that could affect that companies share price, to be insider trading, then pretty much every single person in government should be imprisoned.

No one in government doesn't own stock. And no one in government doesn't work on legislation that could directly affect that stock.

Do you realize that likely the biggest Corporation to get various government contracts, isn't Halliburton, or Raytheon. It's General Electric. More members of our government own stock in General Electric, than any other company in the world.

Almost half the government should be tried for insider trading by your standard.

And further, these are only the people we know about. How many have blind trusts, where the investments are kept completely hidden from public view?

But honestly, the most openly questionable deals, have been proudly public, and no one cared.

For example, when Al Gore VP in the corrupt Clinton administration years, arranged the sale of Elk Hill Oil Leases to Occidental Petroleum... a firm he happened to have $100,000 worth of stock in, that instantly grew to nearly a million after the news of the oil leases went public.

Funny how the left-wing didn't seem at all worried about corruption, even from a hypocrite like Al Gore completely against oil until he profited from it, but now suddenly the worry of corruption is back? Selective outrage it would seem.

I'm so pleased that you focused in on the phrase that I used before you went on your rant of deflection.

If you know something that the public doesn't know and use that info to structure your investments.....it is known as insider trading. You may question whether or not Price did this....and we won't know for certain until there is some kind of investigation. But....you need not play word games and then avoid the subject in your insane reflex to defend a nutbag.

Try harder.

The irony is, I explained all that, while you stopped at the first line and didn't read the rest. Then you went on to accuse me, of doing, what you in fact did. Hypocrite much?

I am well aware of what insider trading is. Either prove it, or don't say it.

You didn't explain anything. You deflected. It is boring.

And...since you ask....yes. I am often a hypocrite. I try not to make it my calling card, though. You won't find me defending and deflecting every fucking time I see something that makes me uncomfortable.

Price has to answer some questions. That is all that I have said here. You don't agree. Fine. Al Gore has nothing to do with it.

You just deflected again, while claiming I was deflecting.

You have to answer my questions. I proved he didn't engage in insider trading. You did not, because you could not, respond to that, and haven't made any attempt to justify your position yet.

When you do, the discussion will continue. Until then, all you can do is accuse others of what you have done in every single post thus far.

Either prove he engaged in insider trading, or you are a liar.

I did not claim that he engaged in insider trading. Try harder.

 

[Andylusion]

I'm confused.

You are saying he engaged in insider trading, which is not what the article suggests.

The article says he traded in stock while a member of congress, which was working on legislation that could affect stock price.

Insider trading is working at the company, when you have company inside information that isn't public.

Legislation on capital hill isn't inside information. Everyone can see what legislation is being discussed, what amendments are proposed, and what bills are being passed. There is nothing that isn't public.

Moreover, if you are to consider all members of congress that have stock in a company, that are working legislation that could affect that companies share price, to be insider trading, then pretty much every single person in government should be imprisoned.

No one in government doesn't own stock. And no one in government doesn't work on legislation that could directly affect that stock.

Do you realize that likely the biggest Corporation to get various government contracts, isn't Halliburton, or Raytheon. It's General Electric. More members of our government own stock in General Electric, than any other company in the world.

Almost half the government should be tried for insider trading by your standard.

And further, these are only the people we know about. How many have blind trusts, where the investments are kept completely hidden from public view?

But honestly, the most openly questionable deals, have been proudly public, and no one cared.

For example, when Al Gore VP in the corrupt Clinton administration years, arranged the sale of Elk Hill Oil Leases to Occidental Petroleum... a firm he happened to have $100,000 worth of stock in, that instantly grew to nearly a million after the news of the oil leases went public.

Funny how the left-wing didn't seem at all worried about corruption, even from a hypocrite like Al Gore completely against oil until he profited from it, but now suddenly the worry of corruption is back? Selective outrage it would seem.

I'm so pleased that you focused in on the phrase that I used before you went on your rant of deflection.

If you know something that the public doesn't know and use that info to structure your investments.....it is known as insider trading. You may question whether or not Price did this....and we won't know for certain until there is some kind of investigation. But....you need not play word games and then avoid the subject in your insane reflex to defend a nutbag.

Try harder.

The irony is, I explained all that, while you stopped at the first line and didn't read the rest. Then you went on to accuse me, of doing, what you in fact did. Hypocrite much?

I am well aware of what insider trading is. Either prove it, or don't say it.

You didn't explain anything. You deflected. It is boring.

And...since you ask....yes. I am often a hypocrite. I try not to make it my calling card, though. You won't find me defending and deflecting every fucking time I see something that makes me uncomfortable.

Price has to answer some questions. That is all that I have said here. You don't agree. Fine. Al Gore has nothing to do with it.

You just deflected again, while claiming I was deflecting.

You have to answer my questions. I proved he didn't engage in insider trading. You did not, because you could not, respond to that, and haven't made any attempt to justify your position yet.

When you do, the discussion will continue. Until then, all you can do is accuse others of what you have done in every single post thus far.

Either prove he engaged in insider trading, or you are a liar.

I did not claim that he engaged in insider trading. Try harder.

Great. Then he has no need to answer any questions. Because short of insider-trading, it isn't against the law, and you shouldn't be harassing someone for not breaking a law.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I'm so pleased that you focused in on the phrase that I used before you went on your rant of deflection.

If you know something that the public doesn't know and use that info to structure your investments.....it is known as insider trading. You may question whether or not Price did this....and we won't know for certain until there is some kind of investigation. But....you need not play word games and then avoid the subject in your insane reflex to defend a nutbag.

Try harder.

The irony is, I explained all that, while you stopped at the first line and didn't read the rest. Then you went on to accuse me, of doing, what you in fact did. Hypocrite much?

I am well aware of what insider trading is. Either prove it, or don't say it.

You didn't explain anything. You deflected. It is boring.

And...since you ask....yes. I am often a hypocrite. I try not to make it my calling card, though. You won't find me defending and deflecting every fucking time I see something that makes me uncomfortable.

Price has to answer some questions. That is all that I have said here. You don't agree. Fine. Al Gore has nothing to do with it.

You just deflected again, while claiming I was deflecting.

You have to answer my questions. I proved he didn't engage in insider trading. You did not, because you could not, respond to that, and haven't made any attempt to justify your position yet.

When you do, the discussion will continue. Until then, all you can do is accuse others of what you have done in every single post thus far.

Either prove he engaged in insider trading, or you are a liar.

I did not claim that he engaged in insider trading. Try harder.

Great. Then he has no need to answer any questions. Because short of insider-trading, it isn't against the law, and you shouldn't be harassing someone for not breaking a law.

That is awesome. You now claim to know that he has not engaged in insider trading. There is no need for him to answer any questions!

Merry Christmas guy. Sugarplum band all that jazz.