# Paul Krugman "hits the nail on the head" in re: Obamacare



## Dot Com (Dec 3, 2013)

Krugman is a very wise man:

Unacceptable Realities

(snip)


> The hysteria over Obamacare is being well documented, of course; Sahil Kapur&#8217;s piece on *&#8220;Obamacare McCarthyism&#8221; &#8212; the instant purging of any Republican who offers any hint of accommodation to the law of the land *&#8212; is getting a lot of well-deserved attention. One thing Kapur doesn&#8217;t emphasize, however, is what* I see a lot in my inbox* (and in my reading): the furious insistence that nothing resembling a government guarantee of health insurance can possibly work.
> 
> That&#8217;s a curious belief to hold, given the fact that *every other advanced country has such a guarantee*, and that we ourselves have a 45-year-old single-payer system for seniors that has worked pretty well all this time. *But nothing makes these people as angry as the suggestion that Obamacare might actually prove workable.*





​


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Dec 3, 2013)

Krugman is a puffed up ass hat who sits in his ivory tower pontificating what should be, yet has never produced a working model of anything he has advanced over the years, hence he is a hero of the political left.  His head is what's been hit, several times I'm guessing.


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Dec 3, 2013)

Krugman's politically motivated boilerplate reads as though his head has been hitting a lot of nails.


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 3, 2013)

any non- ad hominem responses?


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Dec 3, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> any non- ad hominem responses?



Where is the Ad Hominem?  Please provide one successful real world working economic model Krugman has ever produced and implemented.  Just one.


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Dec 3, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> any non- ad hominem responses?


What would be your reaction to a thread that starts with "Sean Hannity says..."?

Need I really use too much imagination to guess?

Krugman is every bit as much a partisan hack job as a guy like Hannity and you know it.


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 3, 2013)

I want single-payer like Israel has anyway.

Unacceptable Realities


> That&#8217;s a curious belief to hold, given *the fact that every other advanced country has such a guarantee*, and that we ourselves have a 45-year-old single-payer system for seniors that has worked pretty well all this time. But nothing makes these people as angry as the suggestion that Obamacare might actually prove workable.


----------



## dblack (Dec 3, 2013)

Paul Krugman and Ezra Klein sitting in a tree....


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Dec 3, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> I want single-payer like Israel has anyway.
> 
> Unacceptable Realities
> 
> ...


Move to Israel. Problem solved.

Take Krugman with you. He's Jewish and should fit right in. One of America's problems solved.


----------



## dblack (Dec 3, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> I want single-payer like Israel has anyway.
> 
> Unacceptable Realities



Are you offering your desire for single payer as an unacceptable reality? Because it ain't gonna happen. The corporatists you support don't want it. You've been duped dude.


----------



## HenryBHough (Dec 3, 2013)

The airlines are living for the day when single payer comes to America.  They'll clean up on taking medical tourists to places like Singapore and India where the waiting lists won't be months long.

Doubt it?  Think about how the U.S. deficit could be trimmed just by implementing a "medical tourism tax" on Canadians crossing the border for timely care.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated (Dec 3, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> Krugman is a very wise man:
> 
> Unacceptable Realities
> 
> ...



HEre's non ad-hominem.

The argument from a lot of us that don't support socialized health care isn't that a government guarantee can't exist.  What sorta silly shit would that be?  ANy guarantee can exist.

Vote me into office right now, I'll guarantee three super models for each male American citizen to use as they please.  I won't be able to come up with nearly that many (or any), but fuck me if I can't make you a guarantee here and now.

Guarantees don't mean shit.  You can't legislate your way past shortages.  Nobody's saying the government is unable to guarantee anything. . . you ever watch an election?  They guarantee shit all the time.  What I'm saying (I won't speak for anyone else) is that shit happens whether the individual is in charge or society is in charge.  Personally, I prefer the former to the latter.  I'd rather it be decided on -my- actions and -my- ability whether or not I'm able to achieve health care.  I don't want society in charge of my medical fate.  Period.


----------



## Flopper (Dec 3, 2013)

The conservative complaints about Obamacare reminds me of the complaints about the weather we're having in my area, lots of complains about it, but no one is going to do anything.  Repeal of the law is out of the question.  The law will be fully implemented before there will be any real chance of repealing it.  What would be required is not just a repeal of the law but a law that transitions from Obamacare to something yet undefined.  It took Democrats nearly two years to pass the law and they had full control of government.


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 3, 2013)

HenryBHough said:


> The airlines are living for the day when single payer comes to America.  They'll clean up on taking medical tourists to places like Singapore and India where the waiting lists won't be months long.
> 
> Doubt it?  Think about how the U.S. deficit could be trimmed just by implementing a "medical tourism tax" on Canadians crossing the border for timely care.



we currently have a lot of sedate-lifestyle/obese people. ACA addresses that to an extent w/ preventative care. Business as usual medicine only addressed the issues AFTER they occurred so as to make the most $$$ for the hospital industrial complex.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 3, 2013)

WTF. Obama just changes anything he doesn't like about the law

Who stopped him?

Name a single Republican who prevented Obama from making any of the changes he's made to ObamaCAre


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 3, 2013)

Flopper said:


> The conservative complaints about Obamacare reminds me of the complaints about the weather we're having in my area, lots of complains about it, but no one is going to do anything.  Repeal of the law is out of question.  The law will be fully implemented before there will be any real chance of repealing it.  What would be required is not just a repeal of the law but a law that transitions from Obamacare to something yet undefined.  It took Democrats nearly two years to pass the law and they had full control of government.



Add to that the fact that the Dems have been trying to address the problems of the for-profit medical industrial complex for 50+ years. Repubs act surprised that the dems did something when they had the chance 

You can also add a Repub President to the list who wanted universal HC- Nixon(R) in addition to these three Presidents:


----------



## MeBelle (Dec 3, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> I want single-payer like Israel has anyway.
> 
> Unacceptable Realities
> 
> ...



And like Israel, would you also support and partake in the mandatory draft into the military? Men serve three years and women two to three years.

The population of Israel is < 9 million.

USA population: > 317 million.  Not counting illegal immigrants.  

Even the unemployed have to pay for their health insurance.
No Medicaid in Israel!


----------



## dblack (Dec 3, 2013)

You stupid fuckers sold us out, lock stock and barrel.


----------



## Listening (Dec 3, 2013)

Paul Krugman...intellectual, my ass.

What is so good is that the GOP won't need to do anything about it.  It is repealing itself.

Now, that's a law I can get behind.


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 3, 2013)

MeBelle60 said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > I want single-payer like Israel has anyway.
> ...



I was for conscription during Iraq (second longest war in American history after Afghanistan?). I did 4 yrs active duty in the 80's. I don't regret it.


----------



## dblack (Dec 3, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...



You're consistent at least.


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 3, 2013)

dblack said:


> You stupid fuckers sold us out, lock stock and barrel.



Who are you talking about? Heritage? They drew up the blueprint for the law. Yes, I said law.


----------



## dblack (Dec 3, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > You stupid fuckers sold us out, lock stock and barrel.
> ...



Heritage. Democrats. Obama. Corporatist tools every one. Buncha fucking whores.


----------



## Listening (Dec 3, 2013)

Krugman is Wrong

I've always enjoyed this site.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 4, 2013)

Let's see a far left zealot telling the other far left zealots what they want to hear and ignore reality.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 4, 2013)

Listening said:


> Krugman is Wrong
> 
> I've always enjoyed this site.



I liked this one from the link provided:

Breaking News: Krugman is STILL wrong!

By Jeff Semon on May 9, 2013


While it has been some time since Ive posted on this site, I figured I should update my dear readers on what is going on. I had to shelve any krugmaniswrong activity since launching my congressional campaign. Needless to say no one is calling me congressman since I lost, but make no mistake about it, It was a worthy endeavor that has enriched my life in too many ways to mention.

While an immediate update of Pauls bi-weekly column will be pretty tough going forward. I will try to keep this site a little more fresh, perhaps even give it a facelift?

Anyway, my new hero is Michael Tanner who yesterday wrote a terrific piece on the dear professors arrogance and ignorance (my words not his). If he comes to Boston any time soon, drinks are on me.

Still, it never ceases to amaze me the level of pomposity those who quote Krugman and the man himself possess. All this despite monumental evidence that he is wrong.

Oh, while in D.C. I met a VERY well-known conservative commentator you see all the time on TV. Ill leave you with a quote from him: Krugman is a real asshole, seriously, the guys a complete jerk. A total asshole.

Nuff said.


----------



## oreo (Dec 4, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> I want single-payer like Israel has anyway.
> 
> Unacceptable Realities
> 
> ...



And it is well noted that when we got Obamacare shoved down our throats by Democrats--they also could have easily gone with a single payer--but decided against it.  You just can't seem to get in through your head that the overwhelming majority in this country do not want Government managing their health care.

And the way they have built the web-site--is a very good example as to why you shouldn't want them involved in your health care.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated (Dec 4, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > You stupid fuckers sold us out, lock stock and barrel.
> ...



Sorry, but this is so disingenuous.  You know how you can tell that Obamacare is -not- the bullshit system that Heritage proposed?  Heritage's proposal was short enough to read.

Somehow, and call me crazy here, but somehow I feel like in nearly 38000 added pages of legislation, more than the wording was changed.


----------



## NLT (Dec 4, 2013)

Krugman in second in line behind Chris Mathews to suck barrys cock


----------



## Not2BSubjugated (Dec 4, 2013)

oreo said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > I want single-payer like Israel has anyway.
> ...



The website is a huge red flag, no doubt.  Incompetence running the healthcare industry is automatically a recipe for holy shit disaster.

Honestly, the control issues are more important to me than the incompetence.  You can call this tinfoil hat shit all you want, but just look at how this entire healthcare argument came to be:

The government decided that it was a moral ill for people to be turned away from hospitals because they couldn't afford to pay, so they decreed that hospitals -must- treat people in need, and the financial difference would be made up by the government (taxpayers).

Suddenly, the government (the taxpayers) has a vested financial interest in whether or not people are able to pay for their healthcare.  They decide to be generous and give free healthcare to the truly needy, and then decide it's costing everybody too much money, so everybody has to be forced into a government controlled system of healthcare.

See how that works?  They give people something, it costs money, and they use that as justification to take more control.

Now, -in- the new healthcare law, here's something a little disturbing.  All plans cover childcare, contraceptives, birth control.  How long until the government decides its healthcare system has a vested financial interest in people controlling behaviors that cause them to need undue amounts of maternity-related care and products?  Congrats, Dems, you've just invited Uncle Sam into your bedroom.  LOL


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 4, 2013)

dblack said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



you're right about that. BOTH parties have a hand in the cookie jar for everything that takes place in Washington. I just trust the Republicans less for good reason. They run on a platform of "the gov't doesn't work" then, when elected,  they prove it.


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Dec 4, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...


Then Dot Com steals from P.J.  O'Rourke.


----------



## Listening (Dec 4, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...



Obama's helped that out a great deal too.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Dec 4, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> I want single-payer like Israel has anyway.



Move to Israel.


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 4, 2013)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > I want single-payer like Israel has anyway.
> ...



I served this great nation, forward-deployed on active-duty in the late 1980's so I think I'm entitled to stay here.  I'm a Progressive (problem solver) not a status quo sheeple wanting to keep things the way they are (not saying you are although you might be) even though 60% of bankruptcies were due to medical bills AND many of those people had insurance. Medical bills prompt more than 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies  


> Story Highlights
> Study: More than 60 percent of bankruptcies are linked to medical bills
> Three-quarters of people with a medically-related bankruptcy had health insurance
> Researcher: "You're one illness away from financial ruin in this country"
> Situation likely to worsen: study was done a year before recession



Repubs had complete control for 6 yrs and only tinkered around the edges. IOW's- they rearranged the chairs. Not good enough for the citizens of this great nation.


----------



## Listening (Dec 25, 2013)

I wonder how Paul feels about Obama telling a long list of lies to get this passed.

I am sure he'd say "What lies ?".

When the guy leaves he world of economics, he's nothing but a low level hack.


----------



## Listening (Dec 25, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...



So you passed the law after getting a majority (because of the war) and they took that majority away from you...in a big way.

Can you be any more stupid ?


----------



## hunarcy (Dec 25, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> I want single-payer like Israel has anyway.



Oh yeah, they did SUCH a good job with the website that we should TRULY turn over 1/6th of the economy to them.

You're loony!


----------



## Theowl32 (Dec 26, 2013)

Paul Krugman owned on Canadian healthcare.


----------



## TooTall (Dec 26, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...



The major problem with a draft is the military gets a lot of people that don't want to be there and can and do really screw it up for those that do.


----------



## HenryBHough (Dec 26, 2013)

TooTall said:


> The major problem with a draft is the military gets a lot of people that don't want to be there and can and do really screw it up for those that do.



Yes.  Exactly.

And that'll be an issue when the fallout of Obamacare includes forcing a test-selected many to be mandated to be trained in various medical fields to fill the national shortage.  Imagine the care they'll feel motivated to give!


----------



## Meister (Dec 26, 2013)

MeBelle60 said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > I want single-payer like Israel has anyway.
> ...



Not to mention the profiling that they do in Israel.


----------



## Dante (Dec 26, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> Krugman is a very wise man:
> 
> Unacceptable Realities
> 
> ...



thank you and


Happy Holidays!


----------



## Stephanie (Dec 26, 2013)

Paul Krugman

when did he become the be ALL MIGHTY of knowledge on every damn thing in the universe we are suppose to bow to?

more like he hit his head too many times on Obama's knees 

now he resorts to whining about other countries and how wonderful they have things...

He know how to fly out of ours doesn't he?


----------



## Ernie S. (Dec 26, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> I want single-payer like Israel has anyway.
> 
> Unacceptable Realities
> 
> ...



*Move to Israel! Or Cuba!*


----------



## Dante (Dec 26, 2013)

Stephanie said:


> Paul Krugman
> 
> when did he become the be ALL MIGHTY of knowledge on every damn thing in the universe we are suppose to bow to?
> ...



When people like you started to have a shit fit every time his name is mentioned?


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Dec 26, 2013)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Krugman is a puffed up ass hat who sits in his ivory tower pontificating what should be, yet has never produced a working model of anything he has advanced over the years, hence he is a hero of the political left.  His head is what's been hit, several times I'm guessing.



Pretty much sums it up. He is the epiphany of the elitist liberal idealist. 
Anyone defending a system where people have 40% copay and $10,000 deductible is a complete farce and is either a dishonest zealot or just plain dumb.


----------



## Dante (Dec 26, 2013)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Krugman is a puffed up ass hat who sits in his ivory tower pontificating what should be, yet has never produced a working model of anything he has advanced over the years, hence he is a hero of the political left.  His head is what's been hit, several times I'm guessing.
> ...



jesus, can you distort facts anymore?


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Dec 26, 2013)

Dante said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



Jesus, can you identify a fact anymore?
What are you disputing? 40% copay?? Up to $10,000 deductible???
What specifically?


----------



## Dante (Dec 26, 2013)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > iamwhatiseem said:
> ...


  7 letters:

context


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Dec 26, 2013)

Dante said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



22 letters:
WTF are you babbling about?
But then again - you rarely make sense.


----------



## HenryBHough (Dec 26, 2013)

We're seeing, in action, the failure of Romneycare (the Massachusetts prototype for Obamacare) to adequately deal with mental health issues.


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 26, 2013)

Dante said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



lets not forget the subsidies either. You KNOW some of the mouth-breathing Teapublican voters on this site are getting a subsidy under the new law not to mention no exclusions for pre-existing conditions, no lifetime caps on receiving HC (the old insurance co death panels  ), Children on plan until 26, refunds, etc...

FACT SHEET: Middle Class Americans Saving Billions under the Health Care Law?s Medical Loss Ratio Refunds | The White House


----------



## Dante (Dec 26, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > iamwhatiseem said:
> ...


yup


----------



## Amelia (Dec 26, 2013)

Theowl32 said:


> Paul Krugman owned on Canadian healthcare.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EPd2i4Jshs






Priceless!


----------



## itfitzme (Dec 26, 2013)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > any non- ad hominem responses?
> ...



What are you saying, that " the fact that every other advanced country has such a guarantee" is incorrect?  Anything less than that is ad hominem.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 26, 2013)

It's not at all surprising that DotCommunist admires a hypocritical idiot such as Former Enron Advisor Krugman.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Dec 26, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > iamwhatiseem said:
> ...



Yes...and there are plenty of people NOT getting a subsidy. 
40% copay and $7000 - $10,000 deductible is not insurance. It is pretend insurance.
And let's not forget, that on January 1 - there will be less people insured than before...then let's also not forget that the employer mandate will kick in late next year - which will almost certainly mean that, again, January 1, 20*15* - less people will be insured than before ACA as there will absolutely be mass exits out of the system by employers.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Dec 26, 2013)

Amelia said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > Paul Krugman owned on Canadian healthcare.
> ...



Yeah I loved that one!
Dumbass...he forgot he was out of his leather chair environment and in the real world...oops.


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 26, 2013)

are you allergic to sources? 

As to the OP, Repubs had their chance and they blew it. Now they're complaining that someone did what they refused to address from 2000-2006 when they had complete control of the gubmint?


----------



## Amelia (Dec 26, 2013)

Obama and the Democrats had a chance to do something good.  They had a mandate to do something good.

They blew it. 

They could have taken the time to craft good legislation.  While they were crafting good legislation, they could have spent that time showing America how good that legislation was so they could get a majority of the nation behind their efforts.

Instead of taking the time to make good law, the Democrats lied and they played shameful parliamentary games.  

And now the nation knows what a lying scuzball Obama chose to be instead of the president he could have been.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Dec 26, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> are you allergic to sources?
> 
> As to the OP, Repubs had their chance and they blew it. Now they're complaining that someone did what they refused to address from 2000-2006 when they had complete control of the gubmint?



yes yes...it is so much better to pass Holy Cow bad legislature than to maintain a system where 85% of the people were happy with. Yes...I totally see your point there. Good Job.
  The "Repubs" had a lot of good ideas that fell on deaf ears. 
The system needed fixing, no doubt, now it needs a transplant.


----------



## deltex1 (Dec 26, 2013)

Charles Krauthammer: Story of the year - The Washington Post


----------



## boedicca (Dec 26, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> are you allergic to sources?
> 
> As to the OP, Repubs had their chance and they blew it. Now they're complaining that someone did what they refused to address from 2000-2006 when they had complete control of the gubmint?




Oh yeah! Cuz more expensive Substandard ObamaCare plans are So Much Bettah than less expensive Substandard private sector plans.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Dec 26, 2013)

deltex1 said:


> Charles Krauthammer: Story of the year - The Washington Post



Charles, once again and again and again - get's it right. Oh...even better...he hits the nail on the head. While Krugman is still trying to figure out how you screw the nail in. 
 Krauthammer - the real thing.
And I say again also - ANYONE still defending this disaster is either a partisan zealot or just plain dumb.


----------



## itfitzme (Dec 26, 2013)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



You say that like you have preordained knowledge of the future.  How would one forget what hasn't occured yet? Really? "certainly"?  Would that be to a 95% confidence?


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Dec 26, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...




I said "*almost* certainly mean..."
1) You are a board member working for a large corporation where you are under constant pressure to maintain/raise stock levels for investors...you can save the company $millions of dollars a year if you vote to pay the penalties instead of keeping employees insured. We all know who will win that one.
2) You are an owner of a mid size company that has been struggling like so many small-mid sized company. You can save $1000's a month by dropping company insurance. We all know what the owner will do.
  It isn't hard to predict. And it is precisely why this administration put off the employer mandate until after next years election. Or was that just a convenient coincidence?


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 26, 2013)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > are you allergic to sources?
> ...



85% of the people were happy w/ rates rising at 3X the rate of wages? 



Health-care premiums rise three times faster than wages - CSMonitor.com


----------



## itfitzme (Dec 26, 2013)

iamwhatiseem said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > iamwhatiseem said:
> ...



*let's not forget, that on January 1 - there will be less people insured than before*

Kinda hard to "not forget" something that hasn't happened yet.

"Almost certainly", like what, 95% confidence level?  60%? How "certain" are you?   Based on what, a "feeling"?

Looks like just a bunch of unqualified assertions to me.

After all, how many companies offered health insurance before the PPACA was concieved?  Why was that? Oh yeah, competition on the demand side in the labor market.

How is this, for 2012, Percent of Private Sector Establishments That Offer Health Insurance to Employees | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

About 50% of total companies.  For 2010, that was "More than half of the U.S. population (55.1 percent)"

A good decade change is found at

Fewer businesses provide health insurance - Apr. 15, 2013

"Employee health insurance is on the decline, and for small businesses, it's gone from bad to worse.

The share of small companies providing insurance plummeted from 47% to 38% between the years 2000 and 2011, according to a report from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. "

It's got a nice graphic.





So, given an already falling trend, how much more of a drop is your dividing line between what it was doing, and what will be caused by PPACA?  To a 95% confidence level?

Or was that drop from 59% to 52% because of the PPACA?

I betcha, come 2015, you won't even look at the 2000 to 2013 stats.  Indeed, I betcha had I not pointed them out, it'd never have occured to you to look.

*" It isn't hard to predict. "*  Sure isn't when you never bother to verify your predictions. But, if you say it with enough authority....

And it is really easy to claim to be a mind reader, like " it is precisely why this administration put off the employer mandate".  Oh, yeah..... a regular Carnac the Magnificent you are...

It'll be interesting to see what happens, but  your "*almost* certainly " really dont' mean much.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Dec 26, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> 85% of the people were happyw/ rates rising at 3X the rate of wages?


 Now they are rising even faster...still laughing?


----------



## itfitzme (Dec 26, 2013)

It'd be really nice to be able to compare state health insurance standards before PPACA to PPACA standards. That is kind key.


----------



## itfitzme (Dec 26, 2013)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > 85% of the people were happyw/ rates rising at 3X the rate of wages?
> ...



You're head is  just full of unqualified, imaginary BS.


----------



## itfitzme (Dec 26, 2013)

Here is a nice link

Health Insurance Premiums


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 26, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...



true. That lazy or  rw'er hasn't evn posted one link. He's merely spamming the thread w/ his "opinions" :yawn:


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Dec 26, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...



   I would expect you to think that.
Premiums are not the only cost bub. 
Which is better...
PLAN (A)...$670 a month...80/20....$3000 deductible.
PLAN (B)...$550 a month...60/40....$7500 deductible. 
   Imaginary?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 26, 2013)

Are you sure obama wasn't the nail?


----------



## Flopper (Dec 26, 2013)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Higher deductible insurance with yearly maximums at or near the deductible  is certainly not pretend insurance.  It does what insurance should do, pay medical expenses that would be financial disastrous for the family while providing free preventive care and placing the responsibility of paying for routine medicare on the policy holder.     

All other things being equal, you're better off financially buying high deductible insurance.  If you compare the premiums of a high deductible plan with a low deductible plan with the same benefits, you will probably find that you will save a good bit of money by buying the high deductible plan and saving the difference in premiums to apply toward your deductible.

BTW Don't you mean co-insurance, not copy?


----------



## Amelia (Dec 26, 2013)

Flopper said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...




Before when you had this high of deductible, you could get lower premiums. Now they have high premiums and high deductibles at the same time.  

Treatments which were covered before now have prohibitive deductibles associated with them so people will opt not to get the healthcare they would have chosen before.  What kind of quality of life will people have who can no longer afford pain management therapy thanks to the ACA?



The kicker is that when people choose not to get healthcare because it's so expensive, Obama will probably get credit for lowering healthcare spending in the nation.  Another example of spinning a failure as a win.  Happens a lot these days.


----------



## Flopper (Dec 26, 2013)

iamwhatiseem said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > iamwhatiseem said:
> ...


Employers began offering health insurance benefits to either satisfy union contracts or as a benefit to compete in labor market.  Both reasons are valid today just as they have been in the past.  For larger employers the penalty for not offering health insurance is $2,000/ full time employee.  This and other considerations are the reason why over 98% of the employers offer health insurance will continue to do so.

Will Your Employer Drop Coverage Under Obamacare? | PBS NewsHour


----------



## HenryBHough (Dec 26, 2013)

Nails have heads and points.

Krugman surely was speaking metaphorically ONLY.


----------



## Amelia (Dec 26, 2013)

Flopper said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...




"This and other considerations are the reason why over 98% of the employers offer health insurance will continue to do so."  

Your link says that this is the case for two years.  And also that "47 percent [said] they 'anticipated significant or transformative change.'"  And your link includes this:  "So what's Buchmueller's prediction? When it comes to large firms, very little will change, he said. For smaller firms, all bets are off. To find out why, the NewsHour spoke with Buchmueller late last week."

$2000 per employee vs. $15,745 (a googled figure)? ... You think that won't force reconsideration of whether to keep offering insurance?


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 26, 2013)

Its based directly off of Heritagecare & has only just started enrolling people. Krugman is right yet again. The people of Massachusetts seem happy enough & Heritagecare was the blueprint for that as well. STOP BEING INSURANCE CO FLUFFERS!!!


----------



## dblack (Dec 26, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> Its based directly off of Heritagecare & has only just started enrolling people. Krugman is right yet again. The people of Massachusetts seem happy enough & Heritagecare was the blueprint for that as well. STOP BEING INSURANCE CO FLUFFERS!!!



Seriously? You support a law that gives the insurance industry a virtual fiefdom, complete with involuntary 'customers', and have the gall to suggest those who oppose it are insurance industry 'fluffers'??


----------



## Listening (Dec 26, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> Its based directly off of Heritagecare & has only just started enrolling people. Krugman is right yet again. The people of Massachusetts seem happy enough & Heritagecare was the blueprint for that as well. STOP BEING INSURANCE CO FLUFFERS!!!



It's based off of Heritage.  

I guess that is your way of admitting that you can't come up with something on your own.

Or that you have no problems picking up on the ideas of others, even when they are stupid.

Big Insurance is laughing all the way to the bank at our expense.  Do you have a functioning brain cell ?


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 26, 2013)

Flopper said:


> The conservative complaints about Obamacare reminds me of the complaints about the weather we're having in my area, lots of complains about it, but no one is going to do anything.  Repeal of the law is out of the question.  The law will be fully implemented before there will be any real chance of repealing it.  What would be required is not just a repeal of the law but a law that transitions from Obamacare to something yet undefined.  It took Democrats nearly two years to pass the law and they had full control of government.



Now THAT is an idiotic post, Flopper!  People complain about the weather but nobody does anything about it?  Did you REALLY just use that as an analogy for ObamaCare?  Obamacare is a lousy piece of legislation that won't work...the weather is controlled by nature...not one of your brighter posts...


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 26, 2013)

it proves that Repubs were for it BEFORE they were against it (A Democrat puts it forward)  Obamacare = Romneycare = Heritagecare. If anything, you insurance co apologists should be angry at Heritage.


----------



## dblack (Dec 26, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> it proves that Repubs were for it BEFORE they were against it (A Democrat puts it forward)  Obamacare = Romneycare = Heritagecare. If anything, you insurance co apologists should be angry at Heritage.



Again with the "I know you are but what am I?" tack? Google Liz Fowler.


----------



## oreo (Dec 26, 2013)

Obamacare is nothing more than wealth redistribution via health care. Those who have had no insurance are getting it paid for by those that had insurance.  Those that have insurance are getting the plan they liked cancelled after being promised over 40 times that they could keep their insurance if they liked it.  And when they go onto the Obamacare exchanges to buy it--they are surprised to learn that their premiums are through the roof, and that in fact--are or will be paying these higher premiums to off-set those that don't have to pay for it.

The problem this time:  It's not the filty rich that will be paying it out.  *This one hits middle class Americans right between the eyes, or should I say their wallets.*

_And you made fun of Joe the Plumber_--LOL







*Welcome to your hope and change*


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Dec 27, 2013)

Amelia said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > iamwhatiseem said:
> ...



*Bingo!*
  My current (for now) insurance also has free preventative care like mammograms, colonoscopy, prostate cancer screening etc. etc. 
Free preventative care is nothing new grasshopper.  (Flopper)
We have much, much, much lower deductible, 20% copay, tax free HSA and the company provides a $1000 health account (bridge gap) every January.
This kind of coverage under Obamacare would be twice what I pay now.


----------



## Listening (Dec 27, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> it proves that Repubs were for it BEFORE they were against it (A Democrat puts it forward)  Obamacare = Romneycare = Heritagecare. If anything, you insurance co apologists should be angry at Heritage.



No, dumbass...

It proves that Heritage wrote a white paper and got their asses reamed for it.

Let me clue you in on something......Heritage<>Republican.

Got it.

If we wanted Obamacare, we had six years to pass it.  I am sure the demodorks would not have gotten in the way.


----------



## Listening (Dec 27, 2013)

dblack said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > it proves that Repubs were for it BEFORE they were against it (A Democrat puts it forward)  Obamacare = Romneycare = Heritagecare. If anything, you insurance co apologists should be angry at Heritage.
> ...



Thanks.....

Here is the latest......

Meet Liz Fowler: Architect of ObamaCare Jumps Ship to Johnson & Johnson | A Lightning War for Liberty

Fowler then returned to Senate Finance in 2008 to work for Sen. Max Baucus, who chaired the committee, which was becoming Action Central for health reform. *Fowler and Baucus pretty much wrote the bill that became Obamacare*&#8212;and which, we should note, did not include a proposed &#8220;public option,&#8221; which was popular with ordinary people but not the insurance companies that lobbied hard to make sure it was out of the mix.

then..........

In recent days it has emerged that Liz Fowler, who is said to have been one of the key architects of ObamaCare, is doing what any good revolving door crony capitalist would do.  *She is moving to the private sector to receive her payoff. *

Apparently joining Johnston and Johnston...if the article is accurate.

Wow......

How the government can make some people rich.

Here is HuffPo (and Bill Moyers no less) pointing out how this worked....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-moyers/watch-washingtons-revolvi_b_2316245.html

Friends of Liz Fowler will say this is harsh -- that she was the talented, intelligent protégée of two liberal Democrats -- outgoing California Congressman Pete Stark and the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York -- who believed in public service as a calling. That she was seriously devoted to crafting a health care reform proposal that would pass. No doubt, but it's not the point. She's emblematic of the revolving door culture that inevitably means, when push comes to shove, corporate interests will have the upper hand in the close calls that determine public policy. It's how insiders fix the rules of the market, no matter which party is in power.


----------



## editec (Dec 27, 2013)

Listening said:


> Krugman is Wrong
> 
> I've always enjoyed this site.



Interesting site.

I often disagree with Krugman, too.

But why has the author of this site failed to identify himself? About | Krugman is Wrong

What is he (or she) ashamed of?

I might give this author more of my time were he willing to tell us who he is.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 27, 2013)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Krugman is a puffed up ass hat who sits in his ivory tower pontificating what should be, y*et has never produced a working model of anything he has advanced over the years,* hence he is a hero of the political left.  His head is what's been hit, several times I'm guessing.



Sorry?

What are you talking about?

Europe is filled with "working models" of what Krugman advocates for..

And to some extent, the US has "working models" as well. Medicare and SSI both work well.


----------



## dblack (Dec 27, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Krugman is a puffed up ass hat who sits in his ivory tower pontificating what should be, y*et has never produced a working model of anything he has advanced over the years,* hence he is a hero of the political left.  His head is what's been hit, several times I'm guessing.
> ...



Good point. Working examples of bad government are a dime a dozen.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 27, 2013)

Amelia said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > iamwhatiseem said:
> ...



This was not the case at all.

At least not in New York. Insurance has been trending toward higher Premiums and Deductibles for quite some time. The issue started when HMOs went public in the 90s. Since then we've seen a degradation in services at a higher cost. And with worse outcomes.

President Obama didn't get elected twice because Americans were happy with our healthcare system.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 27, 2013)

dblack said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...




Except that Europe (the NATO countries) seems to be populated with healthy people that are pretty happy.

My nieces just came back from Ireland (which I've generally considered just a cut above the third world). She said the Irish were happy and proud of their country.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 27, 2013)

Paul Krugman couldn't hit water if he fell out of a boat.


----------



## dblack (Dec 27, 2013)

Sallow said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



We'll see. The corporatism taking hold of Europe, and to a lesser extent the US, is pointing in a really dangerous direction in my view.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 27, 2013)

A typical disconnect between reality and perception there, of course. 

"I saw two happy people sitting in an Irish Pub, four pints deep singing songs of their heritage. The NATO countries are full of happy, healthy people!"

It's the worst kind of pretzel logic one can possibly display. Krugman, of course, did the same thing as Shallow. He pontificates based on his own experience as if the entire world is viewing everything through his ignorant and short perception. Which, of course, makes him look like a fucking idiot. Not that this is a new revelation.


----------



## Listening (Dec 27, 2013)

Sallow said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



That proves it.

I know people from Ireland who think it is a s**thole and they live there.

They seem to really have a real drinking problem that goes beyond the image that they managed to acquire over decades.


----------



## Stephanie (Dec 27, 2013)

Notice today,  they have OScamcare belonging to everyone but The Dear Leader and his comrades in arms party, Democrat/Commies

can't blame them I guess, THE PEOPLE hate it

Too bad they are stuck with it, it has their Dear ones NAME on it....lol


----------



## Listening (Dec 27, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Krugman is a puffed up ass hat who sits in his ivory tower pontificating what should be, y*et has never produced a working model of anything he has advanced over the years,* hence he is a hero of the political left.  His head is what's been hit, several times I'm guessing.
> ...



Spain's unemployment rate is over 20% and has been for a long time.

Their youth unemployment rate is over 50%.

That model ain't working so well.

And of course...there is Sweden....the place that had the gaul to practice austerity and make it work.....

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/the_swedish_model_government_austerity.html

Sallow, the dickweed....fails again.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 27, 2013)

"I saw two people in a bar singing national songs. Spain is full of happy, healthy people! The NATO countries are in excellent mental and physical health!"


----------



## Listening (Dec 27, 2013)

TakeAStepBack said:


> "I saw two people in a bar singing national songs. Spain is full of happy, healthy people! The NATO countries are in excellent mental and physical health!"



Yes,

And I know someone who has connections to Italy and they CLAIM that many Italians work three jobs just to make ends meet.  They hate tourists because it reminds them of just how bad they have it.

But their quality of life is supposed to be great.

Do I trust my friends report ?  Not sure.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 27, 2013)

Listening said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



Fail what again, asswipe?

I've been to Europe. How'd you like it the last time you were there?

And Sweden's "austerity" is nothing like what you'd recognize.

Healthcare in Sweden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Unemployment benefits in Sweden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welfare in Sweden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What you don't have in Sweden is a huge expensive military that conquers every country with oil underneath it.


----------



## Listening (Dec 27, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



So you are saying Spain does not have the unemployment numbers I stated above ?  

Or did you sidestep that on purpose ?

And Sweden has practiced austerity....sorry.

Making blanket claims against some unstated standard is what you do.  Why don't you lay down your cards so we can show you what an idiot you really are.

All you need do is look around.

Here is another report from some unknown sources....

Italy has some bad problems, like the high cost of taxes, energies, houses, and a corrupted political class. A lot of family have economical problems and the situation is going worse. *Also, the best graduated minds leave for US or other european countries*, because Italy doesn't finance well research, and researchers and scientists are underpaid. 

***************

Another great working model

*****************

I've been to Europe plenty...and Asia....and Asia is in a much better trajectory.

But, I also work in a multi national company where we have Europeans who come over here to live and work.  They love the idea of getting a house with a YARD and not being stuffed in an apartment with the rest of their countries population.  They are in no hurry to go back.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 27, 2013)

TakeAStepBack said:


> A typical disconnect between reality and perception there, of course.
> 
> "I saw two happy people sitting in an Irish Pub, four pints deep singing songs of their heritage. The NATO countries are full of happy, healthy people!"
> 
> It's the worst kind of pretzel logic one can possibly display. Krugman, of course, did the same thing as Shallow. He pontificates based on his own experience as if the entire world is viewing everything through his ignorant and short perception. Which, of course, makes him look like a fucking idiot. Not that this is a new revelation.



Feel free.

Show us one Libertarian country.

I'll give you all of history..

This is what I come up with:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mi_wZMYY_PM]Irtokte Gun market in Mogadishu, Somalia - YouTube[/ame]

Totally Libertarian. An Ayn Rand paradise!


----------



## Listening (Dec 27, 2013)

Sallow said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > A typical disconnect between reality and perception there, of course.
> ...



Yes, we've heard this little tidbit before.

No need to defend Ann. 

The U.S. system works fine.

And Paul Krugman is an asshole.  See the Youtube where he got his ass handed to him by some Canadians ?

Didn't think so.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Dec 27, 2013)

This reminds me of what liberals think of the free market system.
Despite that from the beginning of mankind and still true today - in every single society and nation on earth - to the degree that a society departs from a free market system - is the exact same degree of poverty in that society.  And the nations that use the free system the most - have the best standards of living for the common man. Period.
Over the past 20 years, America is departing from the free market system into a corporate/oligarchy system...and guess what? The standard of living for the common man is in decline, and will continue to decline.
  The same is true for healthcare - the further we depart from a free market system - the further the quality will decline.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Dec 27, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> Krugman is a very wise man:
> 
> Unacceptable Realities
> 
> ...


That's an out and out lie.

everyday medicare declares people dead that aren't.  And since it takes at least 3 months to prove you are not dead, they often end up dying anyway.

Thus proving he has no idea what he's talking about.

Not that you or any other liberal cares about the vast suffering you cause as long as you get the win.


----------



## Listening (Dec 27, 2013)

iamwhatiseem said:


> This reminds me of what liberals think of the free market system.
> Despite that from the beginning of mankind and still true today - in every single society and nation on earth - to the degree that a society departs from a free market system - is the exact same degree of poverty in that society.  And the nations that use the free system the most - have the best standards of living for the common man. Period.
> Over the past 20 years, America is departing from the free market system into a corporate/oligarchy system...and guess what? The standard of living for the common man is in decline, and will continue to decline.
> The same is true for healthcare - the further we depart from a free market system - the further the quality will decline.



Not only that, but they cherry pick from the cycle.

America at it's worst and Europe at it's best.

Those wonderful European models.  

I hope we don't bail them out of another war.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 27, 2013)

Listening said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



Side stepping what?

Spain fell into the same trap most of the world fell into..letting the bankers rule the roost.

That mortgage crisis was not local..it was world wide.

Sweden? STRICT REGULATIONS on banking.

About FI - Finansinspektionen
Swedish banks: Tips from an ageing model | The Economist


----------



## Listening (Dec 27, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



So this (Spain) isn't one your better working models I take it.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 27, 2013)

Listening said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



The US is not Libertarian.

Never was.


----------



## Listening (Dec 27, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Thanks for admitting your original post was a strawman.


----------



## Listening (Dec 27, 2013)

Oh..here is a good working model.

Greece.

Analysis: What's next for Greece's economy?

Economy shrunk 25%.

Here is my favorite line......

Yannis Ioannides, an economics professor at Tufts University outside Boston, says yes but believes the changes required to restore competitiveness have only just begun. *He faults the government for weak leadership and putting the burden of adjustment on the poor instead of the rich, who for example, "are the biggest tax evaders."*

*******************

Just like our government.  Obama only continues to make the rich richer.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 27, 2013)

Listening said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



Making up shit is what you do.

So there's no point in getting angry at this.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 27, 2013)

Listening said:


> Oh..here is a good working model.
> 
> Greece.
> 
> ...



Ever been to Greece?

Heck..ever been out of Mom's basement?


----------



## Listening (Dec 27, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Oh..here is a good working model.
> ...



That's your comeback ?

Really ?

Why don't you just run up the white flag ?


----------



## tap4154 (Dec 27, 2013)

One problem for you single-payer advocates: America is not socialist. Single-payer is fundamentally at odds with our Constitution and founding. Safety nets, yes, but not single-payer.

BTW the "Heritage Plan", which was only proposed as an alternative to Hillarycare, and ONLY urged folks to get catastrophic insurance. Not the comprehensive plans that the ACA mandates. It was actually designed to protect others from paying for your catastrophic illnesses, like states mandate minimum liability auto insurance to protect other drivers from accidents you cause.

It also wasn't a huge wealth-redistribution plan, as the ACA is. In fact, one quick fix for the ACA might be to change it to offer catastrophic plans, which it currently outlaws for most folks, and shift the subsidy mechanism for the poor to tax credits.

Don't blame Heritage for ObamaCare mandate ? USATODAY.com

_But the version of the health insurance mandate Heritage and I supported in the 1990s had three critical features. First, it was not primarily intended to push people to obtain protection for their own good, but to protect others. Like auto damage liability insurance required in most states, our requirement focused on "catastrophic" costs &#8212; so hospitals and taxpayers would not have to foot the bill for the expensive illness or accident of someone who did not buy insurance.

Second, we sought to induce people to buy coverage primarily through the carrot of a generous health credit or voucher, financed in part by a fundamental reform of the tax treatment of health coverage, rather than by a stick.

And third, in the legislation we helped craft that ultimately became a preferred alternative to ClintonCare, the "mandate" was actually the loss of certain tax breaks for those not choosing to buy coverage, not a legal requirement._


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 27, 2013)

Ayn Rand isn't a libertarian. In fact, she despised libertarians. But, such knowledge would require a grasp on the historical record. A concept completely and utterly foreign to people like Shallow and Krugman. They simply just make shit up and run with it.

And a libertarian country has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Nothing. But this is the type of debate skill long expected and provided by jokes like Shallow.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 27, 2013)

iamwhatiseem said:


> This reminds me of what liberals think of the free market system.
> Despite that from the beginning of mankind and still true today - in every single society and nation on earth - to the degree that a society departs from a free market system - is the exact same degree of poverty in that society.  And the nations that use the free system the most - have the best standards of living for the common man. Period.
> Over the past 20 years, America is departing from the free market system into a corporate/oligarchy system...and guess what? The standard of living for the common man is in decline, and will continue to decline.
> The same is true for healthcare - the further we depart from a free market system - the further the quality will decline.



Wait, what?

What the fuck are you talking about.

Most of man's history has been populated with conservative forms of governance such as Monarchies, Aristocracies and Theocracies. The "Free Market" was a Liberal idea that was formulated as a rejection to the notion that all things belong to the chosen few. And it was formulated by the Merchant class that believed they should be able to determine how best to use their skills.

That, of course, was subject to it's own form of repression once many of the wealthier corporations discovered that banding together instead of competing was much more profitable. Hence the government began to regulate to keep the market "Free".

What you have seen over the last 20 years is a dismantling of regulations and a rise of people that conservatives have supported in this endeavor.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 27, 2013)

What you've seen over the last 100+ years is the coupling of business and government, not business and business.. We call it corporatism. The government "regulates" the market by destroying competition, not creating freedom.

Jeebus.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 27, 2013)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Ayn Rand isn't a libertarian. In fact, she despised libertarians. But, such knowledge would require a grasp on the historical record. A concept completely and utterly foreign to people like Shallow and Krugman. They simply just make shit up and run with it.
> 
> And a libertarian country has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Nothing. But this is the type of debate skill long expected and provided by jokes like Shallow.



You guys are hilarious.

Really.

We should all play...  Who is the libertarian..


----------



## Sallow (Dec 27, 2013)

TakeAStepBack said:


> What you've seen over the last 100+ years is the coupling of business and government, not business and business.. We call it corporatism. The government "regulates" the market by destroying competition, not creating freedom.
> 
> Jeebus.



Ever heard the term, "Regulatory Capture"?

No..guess not.

I've seen it. First hand. Close up.


----------



## dblack (Dec 27, 2013)

Sallow said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > What you've seen over the last 100+ years is the coupling of business and government, not business and business.. We call it corporatism. The government "regulates" the market by destroying competition, not creating freedom.
> ...



Yep. Why do you support it?


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 27, 2013)

You guys? 

Really. 



> We should all play... Who is the libertarian..




If you understood history, or had a pinky finger full of knowledge, you wouldn't be debating off a false premise. But of course, you are ignorant, you make shit up. You run with it, and you refuse to look back once you've embarked on a course.

Ayn Rand Q&A on Libertarianism - The Ayn Rand Institute

Q: What do you think of the libertarian movement?



> In 1971 she wrote:
> 
> For the record, I shall repeat what I have said many times before: I do not join or endorse any political group or movement. More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called &#8220;hippies of the right,&#8221;





> AR: All kinds of people today call themselves &#8220;libertarians,&#8221; especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies who are anarchists instead of leftist collectivists; but anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet libertarians combine capitalism and anarchism. That&#8217;s worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It&#8217;s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don&#8217;t want to preach collectivism because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. Anarchists are the scum of the intellectual world of the Left, which has given them up. So the Right picks up another leftist discard. That&#8217;s the libertarian movement. [FHF 71]




This is the part where you ignore your own faliings and continue on as though it never happened.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 27, 2013)

dblack said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



Regulatory capture is essentially a way of displacing government failures onto other people. it exists, sure. It's also a failure of government in regulatory design. It's not a hostile take over of government by corporations. Only Statist apologists would consider that. 

And, of course Shallow supports it. All interventionsts support it. They just scream about what it is from a back-asswards point of view.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 27, 2013)

dblack said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



Cause I gotta eat.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 27, 2013)

Because you have no principles. Thats why you support it.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 27, 2013)

TakeAStepBack said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Why don't you just say..you don't understand it.

Yeah..it is a "hostile takeover" and it generally happens because of greed.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 27, 2013)

Right on que and without any surprise. So, the poor government is helpless to the power of corporations, right?

Like I said, your type view it back-assward from what it really is. You actually support it, because it is YOU that doesn't understand it.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 27, 2013)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Because you have no principles. Thats why you support it.



The type of "support" I provide is fixing technology.

That's it.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 27, 2013)

> Regulatory capture is a form of *political corruption *that occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or special concerns of interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. *Regulatory capture is a form of government failure*;



Regulatory capture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Sallow (Dec 27, 2013)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Right on que and without any surprise. So, the poor government is helpless to the power of corporations, right?
> 
> Like I said, your type view it back-assward from what it really is. You actually support it, because it is YOU that doesn't understand it.



People in government are what? Less greedy then corporate types?

Do tell.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 27, 2013)

TakeAStepBack said:


> > Regulatory capture is a form of *political corruption *that occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or special concerns of interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. *Regulatory capture is a form of government failure*;
> 
> 
> 
> Regulatory capture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Okay.

Your solution to this is what?

Less regulations, right?


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 27, 2013)

> Likelihood of regulatory capture is a risk to which an agency is exposed by its very nature.[4] This suggests that a regulatory agency should be protected from outside influence as much as possible. Alternatively, *it may be better to not create a given agency at all lest the agency become victim, in which case it may serve its regulated subjects rather than those whom the agency was designed to protect. A captured regulatory agency is often worse than no regulation, because it wields the authority of government.* However, increased transparency of the agency may mitigate the effects of capture.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Regulatory capture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Sallow (Dec 27, 2013)

TakeAStepBack said:


> > Likelihood of regulatory capture is a risk to which an agency is exposed by its very nature.[4] This suggests that a regulatory agency should be protected from outside influence as much as possible. Alternatively, *it may be better to not create a given agency at all lest the agency become victim, in which case it may serve its regulated subjects rather than those whom the agency was designed to protect. A captured regulatory agency is often worse than no regulation, because it wields the authority of government.* However, increased transparency of the agency may mitigate the effects of capture.
> >
> >
> >
> ...



Which totally ignores the fact that the SEC, when "captured", made things "worse" by not doing anything.


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 27, 2013)

Listening said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > it proves that Repubs were for it BEFORE they were against it (A Democrat puts it forward)  Obamacare = Romneycare = Heritagecare. If anything, you insurance co apologists should be angry at Heritage.
> ...



you still not "man up" & start a new acct after losing your wager.  You promised to leave the board if 44 won reelection, which he did. Stop wasting my time son


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 27, 2013)

Sallow said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > > Likelihood of regulatory capture is a risk to which an agency is exposed by its very nature.[4] This suggests that a regulatory agency should be protected from outside influence as much as possible. Alternatively, *it may be better to not create a given agency at all lest the agency become victim, in which case it may serve its regulated subjects rather than those whom the agency was designed to protect. A captured regulatory agency is often worse than no regulation, because it wields the authority of government.* However, increased transparency of the agency may mitigate the effects of capture.(including regulatory capture).[5]
> ...



Christ. On. Crutches.

That is exactly what it is saying. it didn't miss anything. You just have to belly up to the pretzel logic bar for another helping of The government did it's best Brandy.


----------



## dblack (Dec 27, 2013)

Sallow said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > > Likelihood of regulatory capture is a risk to which an agency is exposed by its very nature.[4] This suggests that a regulatory agency should be protected from outside influence as much as possible. Alternatively, *it may be better to not create a given agency at all lest the agency become victim, in which case it may serve its regulated subjects rather than those whom the agency was designed to protect. A captured regulatory agency is often worse than no regulation, because it wields the authority of government.* However, increased transparency of the agency may mitigate the effects of capture.(including regulatory capture).[5]
> ...



Most of the reg agencies start off 'captured'. They're generally set up by the vested interests in a given industry to further entrench their dominance. Look at ACA for a primer.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 27, 2013)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



Um..yah.

"My" pretzel logic..

Hoo boy.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 27, 2013)

dblack said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



Not really sure what you fellows are looking for..

There's value in having experts from our various industries involved in industries, crafting legislation. But there's got to be a partnership between all vested interests.


----------



## Flopper (Dec 27, 2013)

Amelia said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > iamwhatiseem said:
> ...


$15,745 is the cost of the premium, not the cost to the employer.  Today over half the cost of health insurance is now borne by the employee, not the employer.  Further, the employer contribution is tax deductible and the $2,000 penalty which increases yearly is not.

I would expect most small firms to purchase group plans on the exchange or if most employees qualify for subsidies move them to the exchange.  Small employers don't have the purchasing power like large companies so if most of the employees qualify for subsidies it becomes less costly for everyone to move the employees to the exchange and drop the group plan. 

Read the Law | HHS.gov/healthcare


----------



## Amelia (Dec 27, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...





New York isn't  the same as the rest of the nation.  I don't know the details so I'll surely say something wrong if I try to be too specific but from what I understand New York had a particularly unhealthy pool of insured people since they already required insurance companies to insure people with preexisiting conditions but of course didn't have a mandate that healthy people also be insured.



You could have benefited from being allowed to buy insurance across state lines.  

Now thanks to O-care, people can't even buy insurance across county lines, so people in neighboring counties are seeing price disparities similar to those previously experienced between  states.


----------



## Amelia (Dec 27, 2013)

Sallow said:


> ....
> 
> President Obama didn't get elected twice because Americans were happy with our healthcare system.





President Obama was elected twice because of the particular phenomenon Obama is -- a blank screen upon which people could project their hopes and dreams -- and because of how much better he was at assembling a campaign team than he is at governing -- and because Republicans shot themselves in the foot on social issues.  The last election was won by slogans like "vote like your pussy depends on it" with the help of wackos like Akin, Mourdock and Santorum, not because Americans were unhappy with their health care options.

He wasn't well enough known for most people to see how dishonest he is.  And for some reason I still do not understand, people didn't care about his inexperience.  His inexperience allowed him an out.  He didn't have a widely known record.  People had to be very committed to learning more about him or they never would have seen the warning signs about the kind of man they were electing.   The media sure wasn't circulating the facts and    he was very good at keeping his jersey clean. 

Now, finally, he has enough experience to actually have a track record and finally people know how dishonest he is, but it's too late.


----------



## Flopper (Dec 27, 2013)

tap4154 said:


> One problem for you single-payer advocates: America is not socialist. Single-payer is fundamentally at odds with our Constitution and founding. Safety nets, yes, but not single-payer.



Why would single payer be at odds with the constitution and safety nets such as Social Security and Medicare not.?


----------



## Meister (Dec 27, 2013)

Flopper said:


> tap4154 said:
> 
> 
> > One problem for you single-payer advocates: America is not socialist. Single-payer is fundamentally at odds with our Constitution and founding. Safety nets, yes, but not single-payer.
> ...



Single payer would certainly be taking over an entire industry, where SS and medicare aren't.
apples and oranges

Having said that, after this debacle with Obamacare, I think that the single payer system, because of Obamacare has had a major setback with the American people. We have seen firsthand what can happen with a government run industry.


----------



## Flopper (Dec 27, 2013)

Meister said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > tap4154 said:
> ...


If Medicare is accepted as constitutional, I don't see why single payer wouldn't be?

I think the vast majority of people in this country would love to have the minimum age for Medicare changed from 65 to 0.


----------



## Meister (Dec 27, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Flopper, you asked and I answered. 
The government taking over an entire industry being able to set premiums (taxes) and coverage without any competition should be very troubling to a person who gives it a thought.   
 But, you have every right to your own opinion.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 27, 2013)

Amelia said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



Health care was a pretty hotly debated issue in the election. John McCain was talking about getting rid of or taxing "Cadillac Insurance" and Obama was talking about single payer. 

And if you aren't up with that, Republicans made ObamaCare a huge issue in the second election.

Seriously..are we living in the same country?


----------



## Meister (Dec 27, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Obama didn't run on his Obamacare, it was about women's rights to do what they want with their vagina, remember?  The media wouldn't touch on Obamacare during the cycle, it was more with Romney's dog on the roof of the car and just how rich Romney was.....that's what the media played up, remember?


----------



## TooTall (Dec 27, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Medicare costs $104 a month per person.  For a family of four that is $416 a month.  It pays 80% of a hospital stay.  Go into the Hospital for three days, get a bill for $30,000 and you only have to pay $6,000 out of your pocket.

Prescription drugs are covered under Part D if you want to pay another $25 to $50 a month per person. That would be at least another $100 a month for a family of four.  Not all drugs are covered and co-pays vary from $1 to a lot, depending on the drug.  For example, a 90 day supply of Diovan, a blood pressure pill, costs $96.

Still interested?


----------



## HenryBHough (Dec 27, 2013)

Depending upon one's age & state of residence, a Medicare supplement policy adds $100-$200 per person for month.  So the individual total for Medicare A, B, D and a supplement runs it up to about $200-$350 pppm.  About 4-grand per year each plus Part D co-pays which can mount up quickly.  Then there's the whole "donut hole" cost if you need a lot of medication.

For many, anything beyond basic Medicare is unaffordable. 

But less unaffordable than the $350,000 one time cost of a major heart surgery or cancer treatment series.

Still, if you can afford it, nice protection.  And if you can't, well bankruptcy will save your home if you owned it outright. At least until it's seized for property taxes.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 27, 2013)

Meister said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



Basically that's what you saw with your Conservo 200 Glasses.

The rest of the world was watching Romney speak at a podium that had s sign saying "Repeal ObamaCare". And in case you missed that one, there was a pretty famous Supreme Court case conservatives simply had to ram through before the election.


----------



## Amelia (Dec 27, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...




Obama's team had a different message for each demographic in each swing state.  Obamacare wasn't the message.  His campaign was a graduate course in negative campaigning.  Pure manipulation.  No substance.   And the media facilitated it by not exposing the lies which were always on the record but which are now being discovered as if they were never knowable before.


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 27, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



yep, it was one of the pillars of Mitt's campaign- elect him & he'll repeal Heritagecare AKA- Romneycare..... errr..... I mean O'care. Well, the people listened to both sides and voted accordingly.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 27, 2013)

Amelia said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Do you post this stuff with a straight face?

I know you have to be cracking up really.

Given that Romney was praising Obama at one point for using his Massachusetts health care model, then lambasting him in the Republican debates for getting it passed, then issuing a "Replace and Repeal" meme just before the General debates, then DURING the debates saying he would keep some of it, then AFTER the debates just going with the REPEAL meme..

Gosh..Obama had a different message for every demographic?


----------



## Flopper (Dec 27, 2013)

Meister said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


A previous post said single payer was at odds with the constitution and I was just wondering  what would make single payer different from Medicare in regard to constitutionality.

Although it won't happen in my lifetime, I think single payer is inevitable.  Most American believe that healthcare should be a right and not a privilege.  I think Obamacare will make healthcare more available but will still leave many uninsured.  My guess is we'll have a lot of healthcare legislation over the 10 or 15 years.


----------



## itfitzme (Dec 27, 2013)

Amelia said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



Is that data from exit polls?




> Exit poll interviews with voters point to three big reasons for Obamas victory:
> 
> First, despite a slim majority of voters thinking the country is on the wrong track, 54 percent approve of the way Obama is doing his job, and the electorate was almost exactly split on whether Obama or Romney would be better at handling the economy.
> 
> ...



Voters back Obama despite economic concerns, exit polls show - NBC Politics

You would have thought, after one four year term, the news media and voters would have finally seen some evidence of "for most people to see how dishonest he is."

When was it that the media finally stated reporting your "truth" of things?


----------



## itfitzme (Dec 27, 2013)

Meister said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



Dude, the only news media conspiracy is that they report the stories that their audience wants to hear.  It's true of Fox, it's true of NPR, it's true of every news outlet.

Is is called market demand and is part of the free market system.

What don't you get about the free market?  No one is in control of it?  That you can't concieve of?


----------



## GreenBean (Dec 27, 2013)

Democrats are wailing about unemployment benefits being cut as part of the budget deal. I thought the President said the economy is improving --after all the unemployment rate is 7%. So if we're in sunny happy land, why do we still need unemployment benefits at 99 weeks, and a further extension? Could it be the economy isn't actually improving? Could it be unemployment isn't really 7 percent? Aww, c'mon progressive socialists, say it ain't so -- but then again, we do have a president who was awarded with the Lie of the Year.  ...Allen West


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Dec 27, 2013)

Free market? Where?


----------



## Amelia (Dec 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...




In 2013.  Where have you been?


----------



## Stephanie (Dec 27, 2013)

People weren't happy with our health care, so they go and vote for a man and Party who has SCREWED them even more

Hope they liked being DUPED by voting the Savior they thought Obama was...A man who never held a real job since a lemonade stand when he was a child...and someone else set that up for him


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 27, 2013)

what the repub-voting hive mind keep glossing over is that 85% +/- people have HC already through their employer.  Why do they keep glossing over that fact?


----------



## HenryBHough (Dec 27, 2013)

Let's talk about the percentage enjoying employer coverage when existing policies expire and are not renewed.


----------



## Amelia (Dec 27, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> what the repub-voting hive mind keep glossing over is that 85% +/- people have HC already through their employer.  Why do they keep glossing over that fact?




Republicans don't gloss over that.  Democrats do when they talk about how unhappy the nation supposedly was with their healthcare.

Zombies like you act like there was a huge swath of the country which was in dire straits with regard to healthcare, and now pretend that the number of people who are suffering from the ACA is negligible.   

The number is already significant and we still haven't seen the extent of the damage the ACA will do.  So many more shoes to drop when we catch up with the employer mandate cans the lying slimewad in chief kicked down the road when he saw the chickens starting to return to roost.


----------



## Stephanie (Dec 27, 2013)

Amelia said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > what the repub-voting hive mind keep glossing over is that 85% +/- people have HC already through their employer.  Why do they keep glossing over that fact?
> ...



Low information and brainwashed citizens in this country is what got us in this mess with Obama and his OScamcare...not sure it's going to get better either with their voting in the future, they can fall for a inexperienced fruad like obama


----------



## dblack (Dec 27, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Fundamentally it's no different. That's why a lot of people opposed programs like Medicare in the first place. They wondered, "Where does it stop?" If government is to be responsible for providing old people with health care, what prevents it from assuming responsibIlity for health care for everyone, and if government is responsible for health care, why not food, housing, clothing or any of the other necessities of life?

These people were labelled "alarmists" and their concerns dismissed as slippery-slope paranoia. But here we are, moving right on down that slope. So, let's ask again, where does it stop? Clearly, the question is legitimate.


----------



## Listening (Dec 27, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



You can deflect all you want.

You can't look any more stupid so I guess you've got nothing to loose by trying.


----------



## Listening (Dec 27, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...



Suck on it.


----------



## Listening (Dec 27, 2013)

Sallow said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Because you have no principles. Thats why you support it.
> ...



So they didn't ask for your help on the website ?


----------



## oreo (Dec 27, 2013)

Humana has called me twice to confirm my current policy--at $238.00 that they refer to as plan A.  Plan B is Obamacare at $716.00.  So twice I have confirmed plan A.

Apparently our HEALTH Dictator and Chief has now given me a one year PARDON on the plan I like aka plan A, after promising me over 40 times that I would be able to keep plan A, without exceptions or deadlines.







*Welcome to your hope and change*


----------



## Listening (Dec 27, 2013)

Sallow said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> > This reminds me of what liberals think of the free market system.
> ...



We are not talking about most of history.  And to say that a monarchy is a conservative form of government requires that you define what conservative means.  So, pray tell, please do.

And nobody has done more for corporations than the democratic party.


----------



## Listening (Dec 27, 2013)

Listening said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



Please, Swallow....

Tell us about what a great place Greece is.  After all...


----------



## oreo (Dec 27, 2013)

Listening said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...




They can't right now.  They see the LIES right before they're eyes--the wallet factor hasn't hit them as yet--but it most certainly will.  The THOUGHT of insuring every American in this country sounds great.

Their mouths were sloppy watering over it--their eyes tearing up over the magnificently well pronounced speeches given by Obama--yet they never saw it coming.  *THE COST TO THEM.*

*The "Lil Einstein Liberals-*-have always believed that health care should be FREE. And or that some rich guy was going to pay for it--for them. _ They never once understood nor even cared to understand the economics of it._ * Insuring an additional 40 million uninsured people.*

_Now their wallets will understand._






_The typical Obama voter mindset--"he's a rock star," and they do not accelerate him nor hold him accountable for being the POTUS._ Obama gets a pass on that.

*Welcome to your hope and change*


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 27, 2013)

I see opinions and pretty pictures from the rw'ers in the thread. When are you people going to learn how to debate.


----------



## Listening (Dec 27, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> I see opinions and pretty pictures from the rw'ers in the thread. When are you people going to learn how to debate.



Please point us to your contributions that you would define as debate.

Moron.

Or are you saying Greece's economy has not severely contracted (by about 25%) ?

Or that Spain's unemployment rate among young people isn't over 50% ?

Those are opinions...got it.


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 28, 2013)

Listening said:


> Suck on it.



warrior102 is that you???. 

The cons/teapartiers must be soo happy that you welched on your wager and returned to the board.

As to the OP, STILL only opinions from you people.  Better you concede now than get MORE egg on your face


----------



## Meister (Dec 28, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Suck on it.
> ...



Are you butt hurt that he came back?  So what?  Just suck it up and move on, dot.
Libs are always trying to silence the competition, that's just the way you folks roll. 

I think I'll rep the guy for coming back


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 28, 2013)

Meister said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



the guy doesn't bring much if anything to the board. at least I provide sources, yes- sometimes even Fox, to support my positions. Guys like him just holler from the peanut gallery & get "thanked" by the people who only share his ideology NOT the merits of his yammerings.

I'm over his welching but going out of his way to take potshots at me, after the fact of his skulking back, when he is  a welching, welcher extroadinaire is another matter


----------



## Meister (Dec 28, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...



Good grief......do you ever say that to dean?
I repped him because of you and your childish attack on him.  Like I said, just move on and engage with debate.


----------



## tap4154 (Dec 28, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> what the repub-voting hive mind keep glossing over is that 85% +/- people have HC already through their employer.  Why do they keep glossing over that fact?




*How about the BO admin HIDING the FACT that their own estimate in 2010 was that 51% of employer-sponsored HC plans would be CANCELED?*

Obama Officials In 2010: 93 Million Americans Will Be Unable To Keep Their Health Plans Under Obamacare - Forbes

_The Departments mid-range estimate is that 66 percent of small employer plans and 45 percent of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfather status by the end of 2013, wrote the administration on page 34,552 of the Register. All in all, more than half of employer-sponsored plans will lose their grandfather status and become illegal. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 156 million Americansmore than half the populationwas covered by employer-sponsored insurance in 2013._


----------



## Antares (Dec 28, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...



And ye you never say squat to dean, franco, or Jake...selective outrage at best


----------



## hjmick (Dec 28, 2013)

Why does everyone continue to discuss this issue as if "healthcare" had actually been addressed?


The only thing that has changed is how people get their _insurance_, not the healthcare industry itself...


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 28, 2013)

yep, its not the big socialist takeover that a certain network was predicting.  I wanted single-payer anyway so I hope the Senate Leader is right that this is only a first-step.


----------



## Antares (Dec 28, 2013)

hjmick said:


> Why does everyone continue to discuss this issue as if "healthcare" had actually been addressed?
> 
> 
> The only thing that has changed is how people get their _insurance_, not the healthcare industry itself...



One must FIRST establish control how it is *paid* for, once that is established everything else falls into line.

But you are right, what we are seeing is the single greatest sleight of hand EVER perpetrated on an unsuspecting public.


----------



## Listening (Dec 28, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...



Oh, that's way too funny.  You talking about how you support your assertions.

 

You'd never last in the CDZ.

Anytime you care to engage is a debate, let me know (that you are debating and not talking out your ass).

BTW: Your OP is nothing but an opinion piece.  And yet you are blithering about opinions in return.


----------



## Listening (Dec 28, 2013)

hjmick said:


> Why does everyone continue to discuss this issue as if "healthcare" had actually been addressed?
> 
> 
> The only thing that has changed is how people get their _insurance_, not the healthcare industry itself...



Right.

As near as I can tell, more people have lost it than gained it.


----------



## Listening (Dec 28, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> Krugman is a very wise man:
> 
> Unacceptable Realities
> 
> ...



We never saw dottie weigh in on this one.....

Paul gets his ass handed to him.

Looks like, at least a few might not agree with him.....

BTW: 70% or more Canadians have a private plan in addition to their government plan.  What does that tell you ?

Come on dot.......lets hear it.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fexz8Ij-OBQ]Paul Krugman Canadian healthcare - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Meister (Dec 28, 2013)

hjmick said:


> Why does everyone continue to discuss this issue as if "healthcare" had actually been addressed?
> 
> 
> The only thing that has changed is how people get their _insurance_, not the healthcare industry itself...



The problem is that the industry had to change the requirements of healthcare coverage to what was mandated by the government.  Hence, millions of people were dropped from their coverage that they liked, others had premiums rise considerably along with deductibles.
Exemptions for some and not for others by the stroke of EO pen.

This isn't just about those who weren't insured getting insured, it's about a takeover of an industry......a trail to single payer being built brick by brick.


----------



## tap4154 (Dec 28, 2013)

Antares said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> > Why does everyone continue to discuss this issue as if "healthcare" had actually been addressed?
> ...




I call it the biggest conspiracy to commit fraud in American history, and it's ongoing!

If such a massive fraud had been committed by the private sector MANY folks would already be on trial and facing SERIOUS federal prison time!


----------



## Meister (Dec 28, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> yep, its not the big socialist takeover that a certain network was predicting.  I wanted single-payer anyway so I hope the Senate Leader is right that this is only a first-step.


Your second sentence contradicts your first sentence.  just sayin.....


----------



## Listening (Dec 28, 2013)

Meister said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> > Why does everyone continue to discuss this issue as if "healthcare" had actually been addressed?
> ...



Just wait until doctors start dropping out.

Everyone will have insurance, and no one will be there to take it (at least there will not be a balance in supply and demand....as it is our doctor workforce is aging and we want to throw more patients at them.....).

What moron does not realize that if you have a shortage of supply, price will go up to bring in more suppliers.  But instead they plan to push prices down.

Obama has to publish his own economics books.  The supply and demand curves will look like a 1st graders musings.


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 28, 2013)

that wonderful "coverage", extolled by rw media, that people had to drop resulted in this 

Medical bills prompt more than 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies - CNN.com


> Overall, *three-quarters of the people with a medically-related bankruptcy had health insurance*, they say.
> 
> "That was actually the predominant problem in patients in our study --* 78 percent of them had health insurance, but many of them were bankrupted anyway* because there were gaps in their coverage like co-payments and deductibles and uncovered services," says Woolhandler.



that story was from 2009


----------



## Listening (Dec 28, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> yep, its not the big socialist takeover that a certain network was predicting.  I wanted single-payer anyway so I hope the Senate Leader is right that this is only a first-step.



And what makes you say that oh vaunted debater (who never backs up his claims).

Please tell us how you arrived at this conclusion.


----------



## Listening (Dec 28, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> that wonderful "coverage" that people had to drop resulted in this:
> 
> Medical bills prompt more than 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies - CNN.com
> 
> ...



This has been blasted so many times, it's not funny any more.

First, what is the average bankruptcy amount ?

Please answer that question first.

As to junk plans, we dismantled that here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...43-when-did-junk-plans-become-junk-plans.html

I am sure you were fantasizing Rachael Maddow on top of you as you let this big lie imprint on your brain.

Man up and admit your Affirmative Action Failure lied his skinny ass off in order to pass a huge POS.


----------



## Meister (Dec 28, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> that wonderful "coverage", extolled by rw media, that people had to drop resulted in this
> 
> Medical bills prompt more than 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies - CNN.com
> 
> ...



Fear monger much? 

I'm in my 60's, my wife in her mid 50's.....why do we need maternity coverage, etc.?
It's not up for government to tell me what kind of insurance I'm going to have. At least it didn't used to be.


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 28, 2013)

this is from 2013

Medical Bills Are the Biggest Cause of US Bankruptcies: Study


> Bankruptcies resulting from unpaid medical bills will affect nearly 2 million people this year&#8212;making health care the No. 1 cause of such filings, and outpacing bankruptcies due to credit-card bills or unpaid mortgages, according to new data. And even having health insurance doesn't buffer consumers against financial hardship.



Nothin to see here. Move along now. Here- have another glass of kool aid.

We already debated this, had an election afterwards, & we know the results of said election


----------



## tap4154 (Dec 28, 2013)

Fact is that folks will still face BK because the copays and deductibles under the ACA are even higher than before. As usual BO is lying when he says the ACA will prevent folks going BK.

I had an affordable catastrophic insurance plan that covered everything after $5K deductible, with no cap. Those plans were made illegal by the ACA.


----------



## Meister (Dec 28, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> this is from 2013
> 
> Medical Bills Are the Biggest Cause of US Bankruptcies: Study
> 
> ...


Before the lies were actually known as lies, huh?  Funny how the timing of the implementation was after the election.  By design?   ABSOLUTELY! 
That was a stupid statement you made dot.  If Americans knew what was going to be in the healthcare pipeline, Obama would have never been re elected.  Only a partisan hack would argue the point.


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 28, 2013)

Stay on topic people. This thread is about Krugman noting that repubs will throw any of their own under the bus if they work w/ the President & Democrats to iron-out out the flaws in the LAW. 'lest we forget, Medicare Part D didn't roll out smoothly either* BUT Democrats worked w/ Repubs to iron-out the flaws.*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVOkF396WgY]Dem Rep. Bill Pascrell EXPLODES At GOP'ers During Obamacare Hearing - YouTube[/ame]

Oops


----------



## Listening (Dec 28, 2013)

tap4154 said:


> Fact is that folks will still face BK because the copays and deductibles under the ACA are even higher than before. As usual BO is lying when he says the ACA will prevent folks going BK.
> 
> I had an affordable catastrophic insurance plan that covered everything after $5K deductible, with no cap. Those plans were made illegal by the ACA.



Please notice that dottie (the great debater) has retreated to "we won the election".

No facts.  He won't post the average amount of a so-called medical bankruptcy.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/medical-bills-cause-most-bankruptcies/?_r=0

Among families who were bankrupted by illness, those with private insurance reported average medical bills of $17,749 compared to those who were uninsured, who faced an average of $26,971 in medical costs. Those who had health insurance but lost it in the course of their illness reported average medical bills of $22,568.

*************************

And...let's not forget this is an average.  I susepct the median is lower.  Which means people are filing for less.  In some cases, much less.

18 K is less than the cost of a good used car.


----------



## Listening (Dec 28, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> Stay on topic people. This thread is about Krugman noting that repubs will throw any of their own under the bus if they work w/ the President & Democrats to iron-out out the flaws in the LAW. 'lest we forget, Medicare Part D didn't roll out smoothly either but Democrats worked w/ Repubs to iron-out the flaws.
> 
> Dem Rep. Bill Pascrell EXPLODES At GOP'ers During Obamacare Hearing - YouTube
> 
> Oops



Which isn't a topic, moron.

It is an assertion that you can't defend because it is no more than a prediction. 

What does this asshole have to do with your so called topic.  He's not even GOP.

The most impressive thing about this clip is that the GOP showed some reserve and didn't tell him to go f**k himself.

You really suck at this debate thing.


----------



## tap4154 (Dec 28, 2013)

The entire law is a FLAW.

It's not worth fixing since it's fundamentally a pile of SHIT.


----------



## Listening (Dec 28, 2013)

Own up dottie....

paul krugman owned - YouTube


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 28, 2013)

Listening said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Stay on topic people. This thread is about Krugman noting that repubs will throw any of their own under the bus if they work w/ the President & Democrats to iron-out out the flaws in the LAW. 'lest we forget, Medicare Part D didn't roll out smoothly either but Democrats worked w/ Repubs to iron-out the flaws.
> ...



The fact that Dems worked w/ Repubs to fix *their flawed bill *& repubs are screaming bloody murder (the insurance co water-carriers that they are  ) , is the topic ASSCLOWN  Go to the kiddy pool (coffe shop) son 

Thats why Repubs are throwing anyone that attempts to work w/ Democrats to improve the LAW under the bus- the OP idiot.  Gawd but you're dumb


----------



## Meister (Dec 28, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...



The real problem is that there is no fixing this bill with bipartisan support as long as Obama and his ideology is still in the WH.  The only direction Obama wants to go as far as repairing this debacle is towards a single payer plan.  He'll veto anything else.  just sayin....


----------



## Listening (Dec 28, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...



That's right, asshole.  It isn't germain.  It wasn't a GOP bill.  It was cosponsored by plenty of dems.  And most of us don't like that one too.  So what is your point.

Two wrongs make a right.....got it !  

Please provide evidence that the GOP are throwing people under the bus over this one.  Since no GOP voted for it, I'll be curious to see.  

Additionally, for you so called point to be valid you need to show us that the dems never throw anyone under the bus who does not get in rank and file.

You had 39 dems ready to throw the whole thing under the bus.

And you call me a moron.  You are stupid.  Just plain stupid.  It's people like you that should be prevented from breeding.


----------



## Listening (Dec 28, 2013)

Meister said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



The majority of American no longer trust the Asshole Affirmative Action Failed Experiment for president.  He lied his ass off to pass this thing, f**ke up the roll out and is now killing coverage that people liked.

People like Dottie have to resort to the bullshyt argument that the plans were no good (but Obama has agreed to let us keep them longer and he certainly wasn't going to pull the union plans) when they never spoke of that before.

I have stopped praying for Obama's protection because it has become clear to me that even that dickweed Joe Biden would be a better president than the lying bastard we now enjoy.


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 28, 2013)

Meister said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



Good err.... uh..... opinion  Democrats worked w/ Repubs to fix the Bush II Admin's flawed Medicare Part D roll out but Repubs won't do the same in re: Heritagecare AKA O'care  Reminds me of when Listening made a wager to leave the board if 44 won reelection.  Repub-voters


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 28, 2013)

Listening said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...


WTF r u yammering about welcherboi?  Stay on topic son- Repubs vow to throw any of their own under the bus if they dare top work w/ the other party to improve the law as Democrats did for Repubs w/ Medicare Part D. Sad what has happened to the once proud repub party


----------



## Listening (Dec 28, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...





This post is so desperate it is sad.


----------



## Meister (Dec 28, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...


Bush 43 didn't have the "Obama ideology" factor....like I said, Obama wants to go one way with the fixes, dot.


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 28, 2013)

So repubs will, sit on their hands until November  Hows that been working out for you people?


----------



## Listening (Dec 28, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Provide some evidence of your assertion asswipe.

A link, some clip art....something that tells us just WTF you are talking about.

You prattle about how you bring back up (which you never do).

2014....a new year...maybe you can do it right.

Not betting on it.  

Prove your assertion (that they said it).  Then prove it is happening.

Your post also included Krugman's statement about how every other nation has this guarantee (somehow embedded in that is that it is good).  Watch the clip and see what a few Canadians had to say.


----------



## Meister (Dec 28, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> So repubs will, sit on their hands until November  Hows that been working out for you people?



They haven't been sitting on their hands, everything gets shelved by Reid in the Senate.


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 28, 2013)

Meister said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > So repubs will, sit on their hands until November  Hows that been working out for you people?
> ...



ummm..... yeah  They send bills over that even they know won't get signed by the President. Repubs should at least offer to pay for the electricity at the capitol for their intentional kabuki theater.


----------



## TooTall (Dec 28, 2013)

HenryBHough said:


> Depending upon one's age & state of residence, a Medicare supplement policy adds $100-$200 per person for month.  So the individual total for Medicare A, B, D and a supplement runs it up to about $200-$350 pppm.  About 4-grand per year each plus Part D co-pays which can mount up quickly.  Then there's the whole "donut hole" cost if you need a lot of medication.
> 
> For many, anything beyond basic Medicare is unaffordable.
> 
> ...



That Medicare supplemental policy goes up every year.  I know a good one that only charges $316 a month at age 77.  If both mom and dad are that age, that comes to $636 a month plus $208 for Medicare plus $50 for Part D.   $10,728 a year for full coverage for both.  Drug copays on top of that.

It will save the house if you can afford it.

Of course, if you owned you home outright, a reverse mortgage could be an alternative to continue to pay property taxes after filing for bankruptcy.  I THINK your home is exempted in bankruptcy, but am not sure.  Of course that is a moot point, since you were already paying property taxes.


----------



## TooTall (Dec 28, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...



In the past, the House sent bills to the Senate where they were debated, amended and sent back to the House, eventually ending up in a conference committee for resolution. Once agreed to, they are resubmitted and if approved sent to the President.

The blame lies entirely on the Senate for shelving the bills the House sends them.


----------



## Listening (Dec 28, 2013)

No links yet ?

SSDD


----------



## Antares (Dec 28, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> So repubs will, sit on their hands until November  Hows that been working out for you people?



Sorry kid, the ACA is going to cause your side an ass whipping of epic proportions.


----------



## Flopper (Dec 28, 2013)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


Healthcare does not fit into the schema of a free-market economy. In a free market, if you show up at a car dealership with the intention to drive away with a new Cadillac, you simply cannot do it without paying, short of robbery.  However, we demand that healthcare be delivered even it the person has no money.  Real capitalism will not work in that environment so we turn to either regulated capitalism, a mild form of fascism or socialism.


----------



## HenryBHough (Dec 28, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Real capitalism will not work in that environment so we turn to either regulated capitalism, a mild form of fascism or socialism.



Like being just a wee tiny bit pregnant?


----------



## Listening (Dec 28, 2013)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



This isn't true in all respects.

The first thing I think of is medical procedures that are purely cosmetic.  They should absolutely operate in a free market.

The next tier is "grey area" things like marginal hip replacements (i.e. if you are still walking, do you need one ?).  We don't demand anything on that level.

If you are having a heart attack...that is a different story (and I've never heard a disagreement over that).

So, I would not say that your statement covers all aspects of healthcare accurately.


----------



## Listening (Dec 28, 2013)

BTW:

Who TF is Paul Krugman when he isn't talking economics (and even then) ?

Is he supposed to be a some kind of policy wonk ?

From what I can tell he's a moron.

The left thinks that because someone is a great math mind, they somehow should be better and designing highways ?  Is that how this works.

Sound Of Cannons: How to Debate Blowhard Communist Asshole Paul Krugman Who Is Also Just A Bit Nuts


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 28, 2013)

thanks for the thread-bump welchboi 

As to the OP (lets try to stay on-topic eh?) Why is Repub leadership punishing rw members who might want to help fine tune the Heritagecare law just like Democrats helped fix/fine tune the repubs Medicare Part D roll out? 

welchboi- I heard enough from you son. Go post on someone's thread that wants to hear your rw ravings


----------



## Listening (Dec 28, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> thanks for the thread-bump welchboi
> 
> As to the OP (lets try to stay on-topic eh?) Why is Repub leadership punishing rw members who might want to help fine tune the Heritagecare law just like Democrats helped fix/fine tune the repubs Medicare Part D roll out?
> 
> welchboi- I heard enough from you son. Go post on someone's thread that wants to hear your rw ravings



Who gives a f**k what you've heard (and it must be hard with your head up your ass.

You've supplied zero evidence that the GOP is punishing anyone for anything related to healthcare.  Zero.  Nothing.

You suck at debate.

But you can still post here.

Also, you've never addressed the second thing Krugman claims which has only been refuted.  Keep trying butt-nugget.


----------



## Antares (Dec 28, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> thanks for the thread-bump welchboi
> 
> As to the OP (lets try to stay on-topic eh?) Why is Repub leadership punishing rw members who might want to help fine tune the Heritagecare law just like Democrats helped fix/fine tune the repubs Medicare Part D roll out?
> 
> welchboi- I heard enough from you son. Go post on someone's thread that wants to hear your rw ravings



As opposed to your uninformed rants boy?

You do nothing but parrot the Obama Party Line, since he is liar so are you.

You don't know shit about it boy.....don't pretend you do.


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 28, 2013)

OFF-TOPIC retards.  Did you read the OP? I re-posted it for you here:



Dot Com said:


> Krugman is a very wise man:
> 
> Unacceptable Realities
> 
> ...


----------



## Antares (Dec 28, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> OFF-TOPIC retards.  Did you read the OP? I re-posted it for you here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You've been asked to show which Repubs want to help and how they've been "purged".

Put up boy.


----------



## Flopper (Dec 28, 2013)

Listening said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


No, but it covers most healthcare.  Cosmetic surgery isn't covered by most insurance with or without Obamacare unless it's judge medically necessary, such as injuries due to accidents, problems caused by other surgery or disease.  

The problem with so many of the grey areas, is they can lead to serious problems if not diagnosed and treated.  There are a lot of things that look like heart disease or cancer and only a professional can tell the difference.  However, from a cost perspective, the rise in deductibles that we are seeing will certain persuade some people to postpone going to a doctor.  Whether this is good or bad, only time will tell.


----------



## Flopper (Dec 28, 2013)

HenryBHough said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Real capitalism will not work in that environment so we turn to either regulated capitalism, a mild form of fascism or socialism.
> ...


Regulated capitalism is nothing more than a mild from of fascism.  A lot of liberals favor socialism at least to some extent and a lot conservatives favor unfettered capitalism in most markets.  The compromise turns out to be regulated capitalism which is not always a best fit.


----------



## itfitzme (Dec 28, 2013)

Listening said:


> BTW:
> 
> Who TF is Paul Krugman when he isn't talking economics (and even then) ?
> 
> ...



Yes, dude.  Mathematics is required for designing highways. Absolutely required.


----------



## HenryBHough (Dec 28, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Yes, dude.  Mathematics is required for designing highways. Absolutely required.



It's ONE requirement.

Please try driving on a highway designed by a mathematician who has never driven, never seen a vehicle, never been exposed to any laws pertaining to driving.  

Then, should you survive, get back to us.


----------



## Listening (Dec 28, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > BTW:
> ...



I doubt math majors would qualify as civil engineers.

Sorry.


----------



## dblack (Dec 28, 2013)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Freedom works just as well, and just as poorly, for health care as it does for anything else. I completely agree that the bolded portion above is the core of the problem.


----------



## Listening (Dec 28, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> OFF-TOPIC retards.  Did you read the OP? I re-posted it for you here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Last line is total bullshyt and totally unsupportable.

Or is sucking Paul Krugman's dick a regular activity of yours.


----------



## Listening (Dec 28, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Your statement above says that healthcare should be looked at as a multi-tiered institution.

At some point in the grey areas, there is an element of risk that should be ascribed to the individual. 

If you don't buy the insurance for cancer...and you get cancer...you either pony up or you don't get help.  

I know it sucks.  But if you are always willing to catch people, they'll never learn to avoid falling.

If you get nice and fat and get diabetes....you are on your own.


----------



## Listening (Dec 28, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> thanks for the thread-bump welchboi
> 
> As to the OP (lets try to stay on-topic eh?) Why is Repub leadership punishing rw members who might want to help fine tune the Heritagecare law just like Democrats helped fix/fine tune the repubs Medicare Part D roll out?
> 
> welchboi- I heard enough from you son. Go post on someone's thread that wants to hear your rw ravings



Heritagecare law ?  

Now that is good.


----------



## Flopper (Dec 28, 2013)

Listening said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...


Medicare is a two-tier system which is why a majority of Medicare patients carry some type of supplemental insurance. In fact, most single payer systems are two-tier with single payer providing basic healthcare and the supplemental insurance providing add-on coverage.  When the US adopts single payer, you can bet it will be two-tiered.

I don't think people running to doctor for frivolous reasons are a problem today and looking at Obamacare it's certainly not going to be one in the future.  The days of no or low deductibles, coy-pays, and co-insurance are a thing the past.  Deductibles have been rising for years and Obamacare is giving them another push up.

Actually, the higher deductibles that many people face under Obamacare does exactly what conservatives have been pushing for years, having the customer pay a larger share of their healthcare.  Conservatives have long claimed that if the customer pays a larger share, they will be more prudent with their healthcare dollars and shop for services.  In the long run, I think Republicans may actually become more supportive of Obamacare than Democrats.

If control of congress were evenly split, I think the Democrats would have pushed single payer and Republicans would have backed a bill that contains much of what is in Obamacare.


----------



## Listening (Dec 28, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



There are a couple of points I'll address, but this thread is about a moron named Paul Krugman talking out his ass and one of his (bigger) moron worshippers not understanding that what he cited was just more Krugman horseshyt.

So...I like the idea of higher copays or the idea of being able to manage more of my health care costs.  When my company first started our HSA program, I jumped right on.  I now have a significant sum of money in my HSA.  My monthly premiums are lower.

Under Obamacare, deductables are going up and so are premiums...in many cases by a great deal.  You can't spread more insurance onto people who don't currently pay it (and supposedly can't afford it) and then wonder why everyone else isn't going to pay more.

That is why they are forcing these more expensive plans on people.

The idea of pre-existing conditions didn't just suddenly appear under Obamacare.  it is unfortunate that this crappy way of doing things had to be "solved" with a POS bill.

What really used to piss me off was that people could be dropped from plans if they got sick.  Insurance commissioners in most states let that happen (you know...the government).  Nobody could ever explain to me how insurance was insurance if it could be taken away.

There are things that needed to happen to fix some problems with the system.

Obamacare is a really sad commentary on America.  We don't think we are smart enough to take care of ourselves...so we hand it over to some of "us..as in we" to do it for us.  And look what we get.


----------



## Flopper (Dec 28, 2013)

Listening said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...


The pre-existing conditions exclusion could have been handled differently. Almost all states have high risk pools which is where people ended up if they are caught by the exclusion.  The problem of course is the insurance options in the pool are limited and costs are well beyond most people's ability to pay.  A system of subsidies could have been setup and the mandates would not be required.  However, without mandates, insurance coverage would be a lot less over the long term.


----------



## Listening (Dec 29, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



This is a complicated topic to be sure.  And one  that should have been addressed a long time ago.  People who are in high risk situations should be willing to submit to extended scrutiny and in return not have to pay such high premiums.

Some "pre-existing" conditions I am not so want to excuse (diabetes in a 400#er).

The GOP really blew it by not taking it up in 1994.

Hence, I tell all my conservative friends that we have nobody to blame but ourselves for this disaster we call Obamacare.

The OP is still nothing more than an unsupportable opinion turd.


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 29, 2013)

Antares said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > OFF-TOPIC retards.  Did you read the OP? I re-posted it for you here:
> ...



Thanks for proving you haven't read the OP


----------



## Listening (Dec 29, 2013)

Antares said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > OFF-TOPIC retards.  Did you read the OP? I re-posted it for you here:
> ...



He relies on an opinion piece that cites another article that shows where some people have taken a hit because they backed Obamacare.  The piece is neither meaningful nor is it comprehensive.

Like people have not been arguing over this thing for five years now.  And suddenly ???? there is difference of opinion over Obamacare and some republicans are going after each other on the issue.  Wow...that's a shock.

Then you have Krugman claim that other countries have this guarantee....which isn't one.  And when you show people how Krugman himself walked into a group of malcontents over what he thinks is so great...you only hear the crickets.

Then he says it has worked pretty well for 45 years.  It has worked for some and not for others.  What is not discussed is just how much of a credit card we've used on the system how that bill will come due.  And that is going to really change things.  Like I've posted in other places, Mayo started pushing back on medicare payments and basically told seniors they would need to pony up the difference if they wanted to see a doctor (this was at one clinic in AZ).  You will only start to see more of this over time.  

Mostly the OP is nothing but an opinion piece.

And Dottie still does nothing to support his blatherings (except to call people "son", which is what he probably calls the orderly who changes his diaper).


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 29, 2013)

whats keepin you latched-onto my thread then stalkerboi  

Heres the "smoking gun" that Antares "missed" 

The Rise Of Obamacare McCarthyism


> "I've not seen anything like this before," said Norm Ornstein, *a congressional scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. *"It is just such an interesting phenomenon -- call it anthropological or sociological or pathological. *An obsessive hatred* with all things Obamacare that has infected everybody on the Republican side. They can't say anything positive about any element of *a law that is based on their own fundamental ideas.* It means that when anybody says something that could in any way be construed as positive regarding Obamacare it becomes fodder for attacks. ... Conservatives are eating their own."



"obsessive hatred"? Thats what many Repub-voters on this board exhibit as well


----------



## dblack (Dec 29, 2013)

My obsessive hated is  reserved for corporatist government, regardless of its origin.


----------



## dblack (Dec 29, 2013)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Still an open question.


----------



## Meister (Dec 29, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> whats keepin you latched-onto my thread then stalkerboi
> 
> Heres the "smoking gun" that Antares "missed"
> 
> ...



 Norm Ornstein may be a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, but he anything but a conservative.
Written such articles as:

*The Moral and Economic Imperative to Raise the Minimum Wage*

*The GOP's Cruel Crusade Against Food Stamps*

*Republicans Have No Interest in Fixingor Even UnderstandingObamacare*

*The Republican Hardliners Aren't Conservatives, They're Radicals*


just sayin.....


----------



## Antares (Dec 29, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> whats keepin you latched-onto my thread then stalkerboi
> 
> Heres the "smoking gun" that Antares "missed"
> 
> ...



I almost feel sorry for but then I remember you just aren't quite right in the head.

I'm seeing some guys opinion about Repubs but I'm not seeing any actual Repubs being eaten....huh.

WHO has been attacked for wanting to help? 

Please prove to me you are not as stupid as you look right now?


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 29, 2013)

Meister said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > whats keepin you latched-onto my thread then stalkerboi
> ...



which one are you calling into question?


----------



## Listening (Dec 29, 2013)

Antares said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > whats keepin you latched-onto my thread then stalkerboi
> ...



You missed the point.

It supports Dottie's claims...so it must be so.

Never mind that the guy writes articles that sound more like crap Ed Shultz would write.

Since somebody put the word "conservative" in front of the place he works....well, you know, it must be so.

After all...Dottie is such a skilled debater......


----------



## Amelia (Dec 29, 2013)

C'mon guys.  Toss Dot a bone.  All his eggs are in the basket of the most dishonest, most divisive president in modern times.  He needs a morale boost.


----------



## Listening (Dec 29, 2013)

Amelia said:


> C'mon guys.  Toss Dot a bone.  All his eggs are in the basket of the most dishonest, most divisive president in modern times.  He needs a morale boost.



But we hate each other even more.


----------



## Antares (Dec 29, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...



I knew a Dot Com from another site...and just like you he believed EVERYTHING Obama said was Gospel...in fact he was SO in love with the man he viewed all dissent as racism....

You wouldn't be from Chicago would you?


----------



## Listening (Dec 29, 2013)

Antares said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Was she as stupid as our dottie ?

Even Chicago needs street sweepers.


----------



## Meister (Dec 29, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...



Seeing how you don't quite understand, dot.  I was calling into question Norm Ornstein as being no more than a leftwing hack at the institute.  They're a dime a dozen out there.


----------



## Meister (Dec 29, 2013)

Antares said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



You have me confused with someone else, I believe.


----------



## Antares (Dec 29, 2013)

Meister said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...



Na, I  was asking Dot a question.


----------



## Jackson (Dec 29, 2013)

Don't worry about it, Dot.com.  Obama duped millions.  You were one of millions.


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 29, 2013)

stay on-topic people  Here it is again for those w/ short attn spans:



Dot Com said:


> Krugman is a very wise man:
> 
> Unacceptable Realities
> 
> ...


----------



## MeBelle (Dec 29, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> whats keepin you latched-onto my thread then stalkerboi
> 
> Heres the "smoking gun" that Antares "missed"
> 
> ...




*You first!​* ​


Dot Com said:


> stay on-topic people  Here it is again for those w/ short attn spans:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Antares (Dec 29, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> stay on-topic people  Here it is again for those w/ short attn spans:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well except you cannot point out ONE Repub who has been purged o silly twit.


----------



## Listening (Dec 29, 2013)

Amelia said:


> C'mon guys.  Toss Dot a bone.  All his eggs are in the basket of the most dishonest, most divisive president in modern times.  He needs a morale boost.



Yep, Obama "boned" dottie pretty good.


----------



## Jackson (Dec 29, 2013)

So, let's come back to realities.  What news article can you point to that shows Obamacare is experiencing success?


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 29, 2013)

Jackson said:


> So, let's come back to realities.  What news article can you point to that shows Obamacare is experiencing success?



ummm..... I might entertain your question IF THAT WERE THE TOPIC!!!


----------



## Listening (Dec 29, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> > So, let's come back to realities.  What news article can you point to that shows Obamacare is experiencing success?
> ...



Yeah,

The topic is an opinion piece by the know asswipe Paul Krugman.

Dottie won't support any of Krugman's assertions (and Krugman can't because he has no way of doing it....so what makes dottie think she can ???).

Well, so far she hasn't.


----------



## Listening (Jan 7, 2014)

A bump for dumbass Dottie and the sig line she's so proud of.


----------



## Dot Com (Jan 7, 2014)

thanks welchboi  

You know, if you'd simply honor your wager & start a fresh new acct. or have your rep zeroed, I'd let bygones be bygones. Otherwise, your just another welching rw'er


----------



## MeBelle (Jan 8, 2014)

MeBelle60 said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > whats keepin you latched-onto my thread then *stalkerboi*
> ...





Dot Com said:


> thanks *welchboi*
> 
> You know, if you'd simply honor your wager & start a fresh new acct. or have your rep zeroed, I'd let bygones be bygones. Otherwise, your just another *welching rw'er*



Hey [MENTION=28132]Dot Com[/MENTION]  Why not respond to my post?  
Or would you rather your insult fest be relegated to the FZ?


----------



## Bluedog (Jan 8, 2014)

Medicare for all is a reasonable alternative depending on how high the tax rate has to be support the huge influx into the system. If not possible Singapore's 3m system should be taken into consideration. 

Jmo


----------



## Listening (Jan 8, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> thanks welchboi
> 
> You know, if you'd simply honor your wager & start a fresh new acct. or have your rep zeroed, I'd let bygones be bygones. Otherwise, your just another welching rw'er



I relish the fact you are still focused on this.

It shows just what a moron you really are.

In what universe what I care if you let bygones be anything.

You are worse than stupid.  You are liberal.


----------



## Dot Com (Jan 8, 2014)

"Priorities" mabelle60. Google it  

There was/is a welching, troll trying to derail my thread & I called him (I think its a him) out for his welching, derailing, hackery. You find fault in that, the rw drone that you are  

STOP WASTING MY TIME!!!

as to the OP, Krugman nailed it to the wall.


----------



## Listening (Jan 8, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> "Priorities" mabelle60. Google it
> 
> There was/is a welching, troll trying to derail my thread & I called him (I think its a him) out for his welching, derailing, hackery. You find fault in that, the rw drone that you are
> 
> ...



You waste everyone's time when you post.

I think we'll have to see just how good a debater you think you are.

Care to have a go at it in the Bull Ring ?

You've yet to produce one person who'se been purged over Obamacare.  Or are you still looking ?

You'll notice that Krugman didn't produce one example to support any of his crap.

You'll notice the Dottie hasn't done any better than that.

Sorry, Dottie....you lose again.

I'll line up a challenge at the Bull Ring.  We'll see just how smart you are.


----------



## Dot Com (Jan 8, 2014)

stop derailing the thread and making everything about you.  

Besides, Mabelle60  says she's going to snitch on me if I keep responding to your off-topic, posts for some reason.  

Back to topic? As to my OP, it stands on its own. Krugman merely pointed-out the elephant in the room.


----------



## Listening (Jan 8, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> stop derailing the thread and making everything about you.
> 
> Besides, Mabelle60  says she's going to snitch on me if I keep responding to your off-topic, posts for some reason.
> 
> Back to topic? As to my OP, it stands on its own. Krugman merely pointed-out the elephant in the room.



You can't even hope to look smart on this one.

She's telling you to respond to her post.  Your comment that Krugman still stands does not fly.  Krugman did nothing to support his stupid assed blog entry and you haven't either.

If you don't have the balls to meet me in the Bull Ring, just say so.  Otherwise I will be working on a challenge.


----------



## Dot Com (Jan 8, 2014)

how about working on honoring your wager? I'm done w/ you. Ignore list. 

As to the OP, Krugman always has the keenest insight into rw malevolence.

Unacceptable Realities

(snip)


> The hysteria over Obamacare is being well documented, of course; Sahil Kapur&#8217;s piece on *&#8220;Obamacare McCarthyism&#8221; &#8212; the instant purging of any Republican who offers any hint of accommodation to the law of the land *&#8212; is getting a lot of well-deserved attention. One thing Kapur doesn&#8217;t emphasize, however, is what* I see a lot in my inbox* (and in my reading): the furious insistence that nothing resembling a government guarantee of health insurance can possibly work.
> 
> That&#8217;s a curious belief to hold, given the fact that *every other advanced country has such a guarantee*, and that we ourselves have a 45-year-old single-payer system for seniors that has worked pretty well all this time. *But nothing makes these people as angry as the suggestion that Obamacare might actually prove workable.*


----------



## MeBelle (Jan 8, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> "Priorities" mabelle60. Google it
> 
> There was/is a welching, troll trying to derail my thread & I called him (I think its a him) out for his welching, derailing, hackery. You find fault in that, the rw drone that you are
> 
> ...





Dot Com said:


> stop derailing the thread and making everything about you.
> 
> Besides, Mabelle60  says she's going to snitch on me if I keep responding to your off-topic, posts for some reason.
> 
> Back to topic? As to my OP, it stands on its own. Krugman merely pointed-out the elephant in the room.



Snitch my @ss!  
Quit lying, spot.
You're the one that continues to rant away, continuing to derail your own thread and demanding everyone else stay on your rant 'topic', yet you are a hypocrite for not staying on topic yourself.

Truth and facts to back yourself up...Google it


----------



## Listening (Jan 8, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> how about working on honoring your wager? I'm done w/ you. Ignore list.
> 
> As to the OP, Krugman always has the keenest insight into rw malevolence.
> 
> ...



So you are to much of a liar and candyass to meet me in the Bull Ring.

Got it.

When debate reared it's ugly head,

Dottie bravely turned and fled.......


----------



## MeBelle (Jan 8, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> *how about working on honoring your wager? I'm done w/ you. Ignore list.*
> 
> As to the OP, Krugman always has the keenest insight into rw malevolence.
> 
> ...





			
				Dot Com said:
			
		

> *how about working on honoring your wager? I'm done w/ you. Ignore list*


*^^^Hypocrite who doesn't stay on topic demands others do^^^​*​


----------



## Listening (Jan 8, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> how about working on honoring your wager? I'm done w/ you. Ignore list.
> 
> As to the OP, Krugman always has the keenest insight into rw malevolence.
> 
> ...



Quite a trick too since Krugman's head is up his ass.  I think he generally has the best view of his sigmoid colon.


----------



## Listening (Jan 8, 2014)

283 posts into this thread and Dottie is still AWOL on the fats.


----------



## Dot Com (Jan 8, 2014)

MeBelle60 said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > *how about working on honoring your wager? I'm done w/ you. Ignore list.*
> ...



ummm..... I see that you stopped at the 1st sentence of my reply  Give the 2nd sentence a read IF you are able  Its spot-on topic Missy. NOW will you & your friend stop derailing my thread?  

BTW- bolding and making your font size ginormous doesn't make your FAILderailing tactics any more credible 

NOW- back to topic


----------



## Flopper (Jan 8, 2014)

Bluedog said:


> Medicare for all is a reasonable alternative depending on how high the tax rate has to be support the huge influx into the system. If not possible Singapore's 3m system should be taken into consideration.
> 
> Jmo


It's an interesting system but it does mandate that all employees pay 20% of their wages into the system and employers pay 13%.  Employees do control how the funds they contribute are spent on their healthcare.  The second part of the system is a safety new for serious health problems.

It appears health insurance companies are not involved in the system.

The Singapore Model ? The American Magazine


----------



## Listening (Jan 8, 2014)

Here are some real endorsements of Krugman.  The head Paul hits is is own.  After having to much to drink.

Paul Krugman, Sociopath | NewsBusters

Paul Krugman is Blithering Idiot - Downtrend.com

Paul Krugman, whose Wikipedia page claims he is the 21st most cited economist in the world (as if being 21st is somehow worthy of distinction) and disingenuously claims he is ranked among the most influential academic thinkers in the United States, is really just a blithering idiot and the only ones who really take him seriously are the left leaning partisans who he shamefully panders to. 

Roger?s Rules » Why People Now Ignore Paul Krugman

I wonder if anyone outside the febrile circle of committed New York Times progressives still takes Paul Krugman seriously? An eminent writer on economics for a rival paper tells me that he and his colleagues long ago decided to ignore Krugman. They just stopped responding to his hectoring exercises in economic fantasy, or even mentioning his name, because to respond, no matter how critically, accorded Krugman a legitimacy, a seriousness,  he didnt deserve.

**********************

So of course dottie has him on the list of people he'd most like to suck on.


----------



## dblack (Jan 8, 2014)

i like the idea of hitting Krugman on the head. Maybe even with a nail. Can that be managed?


----------



## Dot Com (Jan 8, 2014)

Paul further delineates the Right's delusions:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/03/unacceptable-realities/


> And its going to get worse. For two months, thanks to the botched rollout, their delusions seemed confirmed by reality. Now that things are getting better, however, you can already see the rage building. Its not supposed to be this way  therefore it cant be this way. If, as now seems highly likely, Obamacare has more or less achieved its enrollment goals by 2015, and costs remain reasonable, that wont be accepted  there will be furious claims that its all a lie.



Discuss...


----------



## MeBelle (Jan 8, 2014)

It's Discus Spotty.


----------



## Listening (Jan 8, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> Paul further delineates the Right's delusions:
> 
> http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/03/unacceptable-realities/
> 
> ...



Notice he forgot to mention those who lost their health insurance or the other stable of lies that were told to sell the POS we call ACA to the left.


----------



## Listening (Jan 8, 2014)

dblack said:


> i like the idea of hitting Krugman on the head. Maybe even with a nail. Can that be managed?



Clearly already happened.  His brains are underneath someone's sofa.


----------



## MeBelle (Jan 8, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...





			
				Dot Com said:
			
		

> I see that you stopped at the 1st sentence of my reply- indeed I did! That's rho normal definition of an insult! You ASSume wrong.
> When your bitterness shows up, I skim right past your posts.



I read the whole  topic which you trolled  in it's entirety.
SOOOOOOO which troll topic would you prefer t start with?

BTW, you STILL haven't responded to my original on  topic post, hypocrite.


----------



## MeBelle (Jan 8, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...






Meister said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > So repubs will, sit on their hands until November  Hows that been working out for you people?
> ...





Listening said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...





Dot Com said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...





Listening said:


> No links yet ?
> 
> SSDD





Antares said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > thanks for the thread-bump welchboi
> ...





Dot Com said:


> *OFF-TOPIC retards.*  Did you read the OP? I re-posted it for you here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Antares said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > OFF-TOPIC retards.  Did you read the OP? I re-posted it for you here:
> ...





Listening said:


> 283 posts into this thread and Dottie is still AWOL on the fats.





MeBelle60 said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > MeBelle60 said:
> ...



  [MENTION=28132]Dot Com[/MENTION]


----------



## Listening (Jan 9, 2014)

MeBelle60....that is a classic.

I can't rep you again yet.

Perfect.

Dottie on a platter.....what a loser !


----------



## Dot Com (Jan 9, 2014)

Mabelle!!!  Obsess much?  

BTW- Krugman slam dunked it in his column 






(thanks for the thread bump GF  )


----------



## Listening (Jan 9, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> Mabelle!!!  Obsess much?
> 
> BTW- Krugman slam dunked it in his column
> 
> ...



Yes, we know when we are seeing someone just piss in the wind.

He nailed it.....can't show how.

He slam dunked it....he couldn't slam dunk it if the rim were 5 feet tall (he's as stupid as you are).

It's all meant to irritate.

You'll be hearing from me soon on the Bull Ring coward.


----------



## MeBelle (Jan 9, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> Mabelle!!!  Obsess much?
> 
> BTW- Krugman slam dunked it in his column
> 
> (thanks for the thread bump GF  )



1) I don't obsess about you.  

2) Krugman 'slam dunked' a nerf ball if anything.

3) I'm not your GF even though you wish I were.

4) The OP started a BS thread and....

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXoNE14U_zM"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXoNE14U_zM[/ame]
 [MENTION=28132]Dot Com[/MENTION]


----------



## Dot Com (Jan 9, 2014)

Won't need to be bumpin' this thread much longer mebelle60.  I got a NEW Krugman thread in the works.   He is a TRUE PATRIOTIC AMERICAN. 

 He calls it as he sees it and this Repub pogrom on their own members is downright cringe-worthy


----------



## MeBelle (Jan 9, 2014)

Listening said:


> A bump for dumbass Dottie and the sig line she's so proud of.





Dot Com said:


> thanks welchboi
> 
> You know, if you'd simply honor your wager & start a fresh new acct. or have your rep zeroed, I'd let bygones be bygones. Otherwise, your just another welching rw'er





Dot Com said:


> Won't need to be bumpin' this thread much longer mebelle60.  I got a NEW Krugman thread in the works.   He is a TRUE PATRIOTIC AMERICAN. He calls it as he sees it and this Repub *pogrom *on their own members is downright cringe-worthy



Dumb@ss...I didn't bump this thread which makes you, once again, a

*1) liar! *

 [MENTION=28132]Dot Com[/MENTION]

btw what the heck is a pogrom??


----------



## HenryBHough (Jan 9, 2014)

"Pogroms" are something which are now totally ignored in American public school history classes because they too closely resemble some of the crap the regime is pulling.  You may have to find a very old dictionary to look it up.


----------



## MeBelle (Jan 10, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> "Pogroms" are something which are now totally ignored in American public school history classes because they too closely resemble some of the crap the regime is pulling.  You may have to find a very old dictionary to look it up.



And here I was thinking it was some type of fruit!  


I acctually found it!


Definition of pogrom (n)
po·grom[ p&#601; gróm ]
*organized killing of minority: a planned campaign of persecution or extermination sanctioned by a government and directed against an ethnic group,* especially against the Jews in tsarist Russia

Pogrom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I apologize for mocking out a posting member.


----------



## Listening (Jan 10, 2014)

MeBelle60 said:


> I apologize for mocking out a posting member.



Why ?

Dottie just admitted she's not going to stay on this thread.

Her ass got handed to her and she turned and fled.


----------



## MeBelle (Jan 10, 2014)

Listening said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > I apologize for mocking out a posting member.
> ...



Manners?

Weak moment?

DontwannaBaBiaTCH...too much


----------



## Trajan (Jan 10, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> Krugman is a very wise man:
> 
> Unacceptable Realities
> 
> ...





> Thats a curious belief to hold, given the fact that every other advanced country has such a guarantee, and that we ourselves have a 45-year-old single-payer system for seniors that has worked pretty well all this time. But nothing makes these people as angry as the suggestion that Obamacare might actually prove workable.



krugman needs some serious meds,  it cannot 'prove workable', that ship has sailed......... the fact that he would posit this especially now, now after obama has been massaging the shit out of the aca bill as it was passed, example- who knew the plans  they killed with the aca, ala catastrophic plans for folks under 30,  that he would then made 'legal'  again for everyone- DUE  to a hardship brought on BY obamacare and suspensions/changes to/of this that and the other, is still the aca? its a riot, it barley rings true to what was passed, there is no Obamacare as it was passed anymore........


----------



## Dot Com (Jan 10, 2014)

ummm..... the law has been active for..... oh..... say 10 days give or take Trajan  Stay classy


----------



## BobPlumb (Jan 11, 2014)

If you want to find an economist that hits the nail on the head, try looking to Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams.


----------



## Listening (Jan 11, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> ummm..... the law has been active for..... oh..... say 10 days give or take Trajan  Stay classy



He's got more class and brains in his left big toe than you'll ever have.

Obamacare is already screwing up peoples lives.

And you've yet to show anyone being purged.  

Facts are a stubborn enemy to you.


----------



## Antares (Jan 11, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> Won't need to be bumpin' this thread much longer mebelle60.  I got a NEW Krugman thread in the works.   He is a TRUE PATRIOTIC AMERICAN.
> 
> He calls it as he sees it and this Repub pogrom on their own members is downright cringe-worthy



Well except that we have all asked you to show who has been purged and you have yet to produce any...


----------



## Dot Com (Jan 11, 2014)

"links", follow them sometime  This link was in the beginning, 2nd paragraph no less, of Krugman's article you rw drone:

The Rise Of Obamacare McCarthyism



> A recent target is Rep. Jack Kingston, a Georgia Republican running for the Senate, who last week told a local radio station that it's not "responsible" to sit back and watch Obamacare "fall to pieces on its own." He was touting his bill to exempt more businesses from the law's requirement to provide insurance to employees.
> 
> The conservative pushback was merciless. "Jack Kingston has Surrendered on Obamacare," blared a headline on RedState.com, accusing the congressman of "[c]oming to terms with Obamacare" and insisting conservatives must not "acquiesce" to the law. One of Kingston's Republican opponents echoed the attack.


----------



## Antares (Jan 11, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> "links", follow them sometime  This link was in the beginning, 2nd paragraph no less, of Krugman's article you rw drone:
> 
> The Rise Of Obamacare McCarthyism
> 
> ...



Um....sorry, your link there does nothing to support your claim...that quote is NOT in that link.


----------



## MeBelle (Jan 11, 2014)

Antares said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > "links", follow them sometime  This link was in the beginning, 2nd paragraph no less, of Krugman's article you rw drone:
> ...


Oh it's there.

Dotty loves selective editing. 




> *A recent target is Rep. Jack Kingston, a Georgia Republican running for the Senate, who last week told a local radio station that it's not "responsible" to sit back and watch Obamacare "fall to pieces on its own." He was touting his bill to exempt more businesses from the law's requirement to provide insurance to employees.*
> 
> "A lot of conservatives say, 'Nah, let's just step back and let this thing fall to pieces on its own. But I don't think that's always the responsible thing to do," he said. "We need to be looking for things that improve health care overall for all of us. And if there is something in Obamacare, we need to know about it."
> 
> *The conservative pushback was merciless. "Jack Kingston has Surrendered on Obamacare," blared a headline on RedState.com, accusing the congressman of "[c]oming to terms with Obamacare" and insisting conservatives must not "acquiesce" to the law. One of Kingston's Republican opponents echoed the attack.*



Oh and the* . *lied, once again. 





Dot Com said:


> Won't need to be bumpin' this thread much longer mebelle60.  I got a NEW Krugman thread in the works.   He is a TRUE PATRIOTIC AMERICAN.
> 
> He calls it as he sees it and this Repub pogrom on their own members is downright cringe-worthy


----------



## HenryBHough (Jan 11, 2014)

So since dysfunction in DC, quoth The Carney, hurts everyone.  EVERYONE.  Then that's equality. So where's his bitch?  We already know whose bitch HE is.....


----------



## Dot Com (Jan 11, 2014)

MeBelle60 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...



You FINALLY found the quote  You sure you vote Repub? Most of them wouldn't be able to.  You have to read ALLLLLL the way to the 2nd paragraph to see it  The middle sentence I left out supports my argument as well. The guy was basically saying don't throw out the baby w/ the bath water & Heritage-funded, attack dogs AKA- Repubs went after him.


----------



## deltex1 (Jan 11, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> Krugman is a very wise man:
> 
> Unacceptable Realities
> 
> ...



Not much argument that it works...lots of argument over if it is affordable...


----------



## Dot Com (Jan 11, 2014)

If/when Heritagecare AKA Romneycare AKA- Obamacare works, some Repub's heads are going to explode


----------



## dblack (Jan 11, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> If/when Heritagecare AKA Romneycare AKA- Obamacare works, some Repub's heads are going to explode



So, what criteria would establish that the law "works"? Compliance? If everyone knuckles under and gives the insurance industry their pound of flesh, will Democrats call that a win?


----------



## Listening (Jan 11, 2014)

dblack said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > If/when Heritagecare AKA Romneycare AKA- Obamacare works, some Repub's heads are going to explode
> ...



Dottie can visit his proctologist as often as he wants.


----------



## MarcATL (Jan 11, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> Krugman is a very wise man:
> 
> Unacceptable Realities
> 
> ...


It's call pure unadulterated rage.

These people are rageaholics, otherwise known as Conservatives.

And their addiction is Obama.


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Jan 11, 2014)

dblack said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > If/when Heritagecare AKA Romneycare AKA- Obamacare works, some Repub's heads are going to explode
> ...


They'll make up some fatuous and illiterate meme, like the one about unemployment checks being economically stimulating.


----------



## dblack (Jan 11, 2014)

deltex1 said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Krugman is a very wise man:
> ...



 The question isn't whether government is capable of being in charge of how we finance our health care, it's whether we want it to have that authority.


----------



## deltex1 (Jan 12, 2014)

dblack said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...




Oh.


----------



## MeBelle (Jan 12, 2014)

MarcATL said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Krugman is a very wise man:
> ...



Bull!

This non-conservative works in the health care industry and Obamacare mandates are hurting sick people.


----------



## MeBelle (Jan 12, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> ummm..... the law has been active for..... oh..... say 10 days give or take Trajan  Stay classy



You said you were leaving this thread!

ACA has been law for over two years, spotty.


----------



## Antares (Jan 12, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Too funny....when it doesn't say what you want it to....MAKE it say what you want it to say...


----------



## Dot Com (Jan 12, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> Won't need to be bumpin' this thread much longer mebelle60.  I got a NEW Krugman thread in the works.   He is a TRUE PATRIOTIC AMERICAN.
> 
> He calls it as he sees it and this Repub pogrom on their own members is downright cringe-worthy



I started the new Krugman thread. Its a doozy as well. You people MIGHT be able to find it judging by your less than stellar performance on this thread.


----------



## Listening (Jan 12, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Won't need to be bumpin' this thread much longer mebelle60.  I got a NEW Krugman thread in the works.   He is a TRUE PATRIOTIC AMERICAN.
> ...



It must be in one of the Social Groups. 

Dottie is just to much of wimp to actually slug it out in front of everyone.

I think I'll start one too in the Flame Zone.

We'll see if Dottie can (wo)man up.


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Jan 12, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> Won't need to be bumpin' this thread much longer mebelle60.  I got a NEW Krugman thread in the works.   He is a TRUE PATRIOTIC AMERICAN.
> 
> He calls it as he sees it and this Repub pogrom on their own members is downright cringe-worthy


If anything is cringe-worthy, it's taking Krugman for anything more than the politically motivated socialist central planner hack job, that he shows himself to be with his every utterance in the NYT *opinion* section.


----------



## itfitzme (Jan 12, 2014)

dblack said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > If/when Heritagecare AKA Romneycare AKA- Obamacare works, some Repub's heads are going to explode
> ...



There is another meaningless question/statement.  

This is the healthcares spending per cap, historically






One of the provisions of PPACA is the medical loss ratio of 80 to 85% which means that insurance companies must spend 80-85% of the premium revenues on medical care.   

So, "gives the insurance industry their pound of flesh,"  has absolutely no meaning.

To begin with, the entire health care industry, including insurance companies, have already been getting "their pound of flesh", as you put it.  And, the "pound of flesh" provision of the PPACA limits insurance companies to 80-85%.

"their pound of flesh" sounds all clever except it isn't.  It is a meaningless statement.


----------



## Dot Com (Jan 12, 2014)

yep it was increasing at 3X the rate of wages last I heard.  PLUS 60% of bankruptcies were healthcare related.


----------



## itfitzme (Jan 12, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> yep it was increasing at 3X the rate of wages last I heard.  PLUS 60% of bankruptcies were healthcare related.



Behind food and shelter, health care seems pretty important.

With the current level of employment to population ratio, there is a hell of a lot of people that could be working to provide that healthcare.  

Whatever the problem is, it isn't our ability to provide healthcare.


----------



## Listening (Jan 12, 2014)

itfitzme said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...



That makes a lot of sense.

Limit the profits they can make and they'll only be going after those things they consider profitable.

Hard to have health insurance if no one is providing it.


----------



## itfitzme (Jan 12, 2014)

Listening said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Another statement with no foundation in reality.  Insurance companies do and will continue to provide health insurance.

Your mistaken perception is based on false understanding of how business and economics works.  Most companies do not earn a profit.  They do provide imce for their employees and owners.  Many are specifically designed as not for profit and non profit.

As long as people can earn a living providing insurance, companies will provide insurance.


----------



## Listening (Jan 12, 2014)

itfitzme said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Out of respect for what I think are rationale posts on your part, I'll try to pull some more out of these statements.

Most companies do not earn a profit ?  Are you talking insurance companies or companies in general ?


----------



## dblack (Jan 12, 2014)

itfitzme said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...



Dodging the question. What will supporters of ACA consider success? Because the core of the law is the requirement that everyone buy corporate insurance. Will "success" be everyone doing as they are told?


----------



## MeBelle (Jan 13, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> Won't need to be bumpin' this thread much longer mebelle60. * I got a NEW Krugman thread in the works.*   He is a TRUE PATRIOTIC AMERICAN.
> 
> He calls it as he sees it and this Repub pogrom on their own members is downright cringe-worthy





Dot Com said:


> *I started the new Krugman thread.* Its a doozy as well. You people MIGHT be able to find it judging by your less than stellar performance on this thread.




Where is your new Krugman thread [MENTION=28132]Dot Com[/MENTION]?

Oh...N/M...

Badlands it is! 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-...w-thuggery-towards-workers-in-n-carolina.html


----------



## Dot Com (Jan 13, 2014)

badlands because I used truth in labeling, NOT because of the content.


----------



## Listening (Jan 13, 2014)

MeBelle60 said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Won't need to be bumpin' this thread much longer mebelle60. * I got a NEW Krugman thread in the works.*   He is a TRUE PATRIOTIC AMERICAN.
> ...



Head on down to the Flame Zone...I just started a thread on Mr. Stupid (Krugman...not to be confused with Dottie).  

Ripping Paul a new one.  Which will probably get Dottie all excited.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/334625-paul-krugman-is-a-moron.html


----------



## itfitzme (Jan 13, 2014)

Listening said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



Yes, companies in general.  Small to large businesses.  Businesses that are in truly competitive markets.

And, this shouldn't be all that surprising when we consider the details.

{I put some work into this....}

The whole concept breaks down into three parts, micro-economic theory, business accounting, and empirical data.

*Micro Economic Theory*

According to classical economic theory, most business shouldn't be earning a profit.  Profit means that the market is not efficient or competitive.  Where there are profits, then new businesses will enter the market, driving down prices to cost. At that point, no profit.  Where profit exists in the medium and long term, there is market inefficiency which violates basic Adam Smith classical markets.

*Business Accounting*

It is, of course, important that we are working with the same definition of "profit".  And, it is important that we are clear about the difference between how personal income taxes and business taxes are determined.  Basically, there are no "expense deductions" in personal income taxes.  I only point this out because that is what we are most familiar with and it's a bit difference for business taxes.  Business taxes are calculated after costs, after expenses.  Materials and labor costs are expenses. {Yeah, my comment in econ class what "You telling me that the CEO's $3 million salary is considered "not profit"?  "Yes"} Interest payments on business loans are expensed.  Depreciation of equipment is expensed.  

It's simple enough to see if we do the accounting.  By the time all is said and done, 

Earnings = Revenues - costs.
EBIT {Earnings before interest and taxes}= (Price * Quantity_Sold) - (Wages * Labor Hours + Rent * Equipment_Hours)
..........{ That's the economics way of parcing it out. Facilities are lumped with equipment)

Profit is earnings after interest and taxes.
EBT {Earnings before taxes} = EBIT - interest
Taxes =t*EBT
Profit is {Earnings after taxes} = (1-t)*EBT

We can look up the terminology on investopedia and wiki.  It get's a bit muddled, duplicated, overlapping, etc in real business accounting.  So it is important that we have this basic set that we agree on.  Business accounting concerns itself with EBIT.  Economics generally doesn't care. Sometimes, accounting, finance, and economics overlap with differences.  Never the less, 

Wiki agrees with "In accounting and finance, earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT), is a measure of a firm's profit that excludes interest and income tax expenses."

So, the way wiki puts it, EBIT is profit before interest and taxes.  That is actually a good way to put it because if we look about the definitions, there is this fuzziness in the use of "profit", "earnings", and "revenues".  

For our purposes, what we are really interested in is "profit" AFTER everything.  Otherwise, what are we talking about really?  All companies have revenues, they must.  In order to have to owe taxes, all companies must first have earnings after interest and other deductions.  So, after tax "earnings", would be profit.

And, in fact, yes.  Most companies do not earn a profit.  Most companies just mange to make payroll.  This isn't to say that the owner's don't make a nice income.  They should.  If they aren't, everyone else should be looking for work.  Along "Main Street" where I live, most don't pay federal and state taxes.  They simply don't have any earnings after expenses.  They do pay sales tax, which they simply account for during the sale, and property taxes.  Can't get past those because they are before expenses.  But, after expenses taxes, typically they don't.  That is, at least, what a new business owner has come to understand having talked with other business owners in the area.  They obviously pay any income taxes on the salary they draw.

In classical theory, even high owner and CEO salary will attract competition, driving down earnings.  So most companies better not be earning profits or we don't have free markets.

*Empirical Data*

I found some estimate that said in 2000, there were about 25 million businesses in the US with an average of 12 employees per business.

"The US government says in 2006 there were 6 million firms and 7.6 million establishments."

Another source puts it at 28 million small businesses with 22 million single individual businesses (owner only).

Another says, "Firms with less than 20 workers made up 89.7 percent of these businesses. ... Add in the number of nonemployer firms  there were 22.1 million in 2010"

I find an article saying that companies paid $191 billion in corporate income taxes in 2010.  Roughly speaking, let's say that there were 25 million businesses.  That amounts to about $7000 in tax revenue per business.  Same source, 26% of "profits" paid in taxes. {there is that fuzzy word usage.}  Never the less, $30k per company, that is pocket change.  So, in those terms, it isn't that far fetched that most business don't make a profit.

So, it really isn't that odd of an idea, that most companies, don't make a profit.  First,markets where there are to few firms attract competition.  Even though, technically, owner and CEO salaries aren't profit, high salaries will attract competition and drive them down.  Profit is after taxes and interest.  Companies must meet costs.  But if costs equal revenues, earnings are zero, taxes are zero, and profits are zero.  In 2010, about 90% of businesses were 20 or fewer workers.  I have no doubt that the owners did okay.  But there is no reason why the business should have either earned a profit or paid taxes.  If they are, they are doing something wrong.  Any earnings should be put into expanding into the market, no sitting in the bank earning near zero interest and being subject to taxes.

It would be nice to have an actual number of businesses that paid net taxes and actual number that earned significant profit.  {$1000 wouldn't be significant.}


----------



## MeBelle (Jan 13, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> badlands because I used truth in labeling, NOT because of the content.





Intense said:


> *Moved to Badlands. Polarizing OP.*




Ummmm, NOT!


----------



## Listening (Jan 13, 2014)

itfitzme said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Yes, what you describe is a company in a completely free market.

And in that market, "no profit" does not mean the owner isn't paying himself something (he's and expense).

However, when the time comes that an owner can't make a living (on the long term), the company closes up.

In the context of our conversation, however, we are not talking free market.  Another characteristic of the totally free market is "no barriers to entry".  In the world of insurance, that is certainly not the case (as it would be in the case of starting an oil refinery).  There are lots of barriers to entry and we call this situation (or most any other situation where a profit becomes possible) a market discontinuity.  

Corporations, such as insurance companies, send that profit out in the form of stockholder dividends.  If these dividends are not being sent out, the stock price drops (and when you are an overpaid, bloated CEO....you own a lot of stock or options and a dropping price could mean millions of dollars lost).

That is why I was surprized by your comment.

Now I better understand the POV of your post.

Thanks.

I will just add that when it comes to small companies, they tend to spend a lot of money above the bottom line to avoid taxes.  The small company I worked for prior to being acquired used to generate 2 to 3 million a year for the owner.  She usually paid taxes on nothing.  She had a hell of an accountant.

Did she make a profit...technically no.  Was there profit....you bet there was.


----------



## Listening (Jan 16, 2014)

A bump.

Although, I would rather hand deliver a WHACK to the sniveling little weasel who is the subject of this thread.


----------



## emilynghiem (Jan 16, 2014)

What I find makes the opponents so angry
is that whether or not it works, the point being missed is that govt
is forcing people to pay for INSURANCE THROUGH PRIVATE BUSINESSES.

Why not make it work by FREE WILL NOT FORCE OF PENALTY?
Why not pay for health care by REIMBURSING citizens for taxmoney wasted elsewhere
and use the taxes already paid to cover for this system?

So many other ways to MAKE IT WORK
why weren't those tried or acknowledged?

why is the government PENALIZING people and PUNISHING anyone
who would want to choose other ways of funding health care?

THAT is what is upsetting to people.

And I am upset because I thought this was the same argument and rational behind "PROCHOICE"
that it was trusting people to make the right choices without forcing them by law or threat of criminal punishment or regulation
that it was NOT about wanting to push abortion but wanting government controls and regulations OUT of private health decisions! 

And now with ACA, people aren't "trusted" with the choice of how to pay for health care without forcing them by law?
THAT is what is so disturbing to me!

And together, it is triply disturbing that people keep MISPORTRAYING
what the objections are about!

Saying people who want the same free choice we had before
"don't want it to work, don't want people to access health care"

is like saying

people who want prochoice "want to abort babies and don't want responsibility"

wanting the FREEDOM OF CHOICE does NOT mean wanting failure and abortion!

This is completely convoluted. I can't believe that the same prolife people are now screaming for free choice without govt mandates,
and the prochoice people are calling them names for wanting choice, the same way they were accused themselves for wanting choice!

if this is some kind of dark comedy, some joke on all of us, I ain't laughing. this is FU sad!



Dot Com said:


> Krugman is a very wise man:
> 
> Unacceptable Realities
> 
> ...



Why is it so hard to see that being forced to pay private insurance companies is not
the same as paying taxes to government?

WTFFFF?

^^ I think you need to take that little hammer and nail. And stick my head right there and whack a few times. Hard. Maybe I'll get this twisted arguments that make no sense at all to me! ^^


----------



## dblack (Jan 16, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> What I find makes the opponents so angry
> is that whether or not it works, the point being missed is that govt
> is forcing people to pay for INSURANCE THROUGH PRIVATE BUSINESSES.
> 
> ...



It is confounding. I'm tempted to assume that at the heart of that POV is a perception of powerlessness. People see themselves as perpetual pawns and seek merely to improve their rations.


----------



## Listening (Jan 16, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> What I find makes the opponents so angry
> is that whether or not it works, the point being missed is that govt
> is forcing people to pay for INSURANCE THROUGH PRIVATE BUSINESSES.
> 
> ...



Don't worry about it.  Dottie probably gets the same buzz (or whatever people get) from reading Krugman that most people get from porn.

He only knows that it somehow makes him feel "good" and that it encourages him to disappear so he can have some alone time.

There is no rational reason to even consider Krugman's horsecrap.


----------



## emilynghiem (Jan 16, 2014)

Can't you move to Massachusetts or Vermont?
I thought those STATES adopted singlepayer.

that is DIFFERENT from federal government operating it.

You can look at the populations (especially prisons/immigration) in
Texas and California vs. other states, and see why
public health needs to be managed locally by STATE to cover diverse demands.



Dot Com said:


> I want single-payer like Israel has anyway.
> 
> Unacceptable Realities
> 
> ...


----------



## Listening (Jan 16, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> Can't you move to Massachusetts or Vermont?
> I thought those STATES adopted singlepayer.
> 
> that is DIFFERENT from federal government operating it.
> ...



Well, what you asks makes to much sense.  It means that the people of that state have bound together to provide some kind of "universal" health care which they have defined.  If you don't like it you can move out.

As it is, there is no place to move if you don't want BigAssed Brother running your life when it comes to health insurance.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 17, 2014)

HelenaHandbag said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > I want single-payer like Israel has anyway.
> ...



how is a problem solved when all we hear from you moronic righties is move out... thats not a answer thats a wish on your part...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Jan 17, 2014)

Listening said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Can't you move to Massachusetts or Vermont?
> ...



how is  BigAssed Brother brother running your health care ???  I hear this from you right wing whack jobs all the time ... but not one of ya can tell us all here how is BigAssed Brother running your life ... you can choose not to have anything to do with the health care system and Quietly pay your tax for it... so why the whine ...


----------



## Listening (Jan 17, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



Hey stupid....did you see all those people who lost their insurance because they were on "junk" plans ?

Well, I had some family on those plans and they were not junk.  Now I am paying more for coverage I don't want and there are requirements in that coverage I don't want.

So GFY.  That's how.

Moron.


----------



## longknife (Jan 17, 2014)

I've wondered why the Libtards adore this guy so I checked out his bio. Here's part of what it says:



> As a commentator, Krugman has written on a wide range of economic issues including income distribution, taxation, macroeconomics and international economics. *Krugman considers himself a liberal*, calling one of his books and his New York Times blog The Conscience of a Liberal.[11] His popular commentary has attracted considerable comment, both positive and negative.[12]



So what? He's got a lot of awards and decorations - all awarded him by socialist, liberal, leftist organizations. That makes him the final word on economic theory?

You can believe what you want. Me? I'd rather ask the local self-employed plumber, gardener, or retail store owner if I want the REALITY of economics.


----------

