2016 Election Prediction Thread

[RKMBrown]

IOW you have no effing idea what the hell you are talking about.

And you are two personalities. One second you are asking for republican "comprehensive" government solutions to everything, the next second you claim you never asked for "comprehensive" government solutions.

Nope. You are hallucinating. You MADE UP the word "government" in my post. I never said government solutions.

Open your fucking eyes and look.

The only schizo here is you. Seeing things that are not there.

You're an effing moron. You said republicans must have comprehensive solutions for every toe nail injury or they won't stand a chance. How the effing hell did you propose a POLITICAL PARTY OF OUR government (REPUBLICANS) come up with a COMPREHENSIVE SOLUTION WITH THE WEIGHT OF LAW FOR PEOPLE TO VOTE FOR THAT IS NOT A GOVERNMENT SOLUTION, YA MORON?

Once again, you are hallucinating. I did not say the Republicans need comprehensive plans for small shit. I quite clearly said they have not offered any comprehensive solutions to the issues that actually matter.

And like it or not, health care matters. The GOP has chosen to ignore the problem for decades. They abdicated the issue to the Democrats and now we have ObamaCare. And still the GOP refuses to offer up any alternative comprehensive solutions to this very important problem that affects the lives of every single American.

All we get from the Right these days is a lot of whining about Obama golf games and how many times he did or did not use "God" in a Thanksgiving speech. And a whole lot of puerile and asinine plays on his name. It's a constant drone of whining and pessimism and fearmongering and shitting in their own pants. They sound more and more like the Left of the 1970s. Whiners and moaners and pants shitters and appeasers.

And I already anticipated the question you felt the need to shout in all caps. I asked you a while ago, is "Repeal ObamaCare" a "government solution"?

Answer, please, so we may proceed from there.

oh...well we just need COMPREHENSIVE GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS FOR ALL THE THINGS THAT REALLY MATTER LIKE HEALTH CARE. Cause there is no way in hell people can get health care from their doctor without a government acting as middle man for every transaction between your doctor and you. ROFL

Why are you going to so much trouble to manufacture straw man fallacies about where I stand on health care when I have written quite clear posts on what I think a comprehensive solution should include??? I'm responding directly to what I believe to be the clear meaning of your posts, not based on historical evidence of your political leanings.

This is truly bizarre behavior on your part. You have invented a political belief system for me to which I do not subscribe. Why are you doing this? You look and sound like a fool. I assure you I'm no fool, but honestly I really don't care if you think disagreeing with your POV makes me a fool in your eyes. I don't think your a fool, I just disagree with your statements.

Repeal ObamaCare most certainly is a government solution to the problems caused by ObamaCare. The people are not allowed to repeal ObamaCare unless we have an armed insurrection. I'd rather we do this peacefully.

Okay, now we can proceed. Your hangup over "government solutions" is evaporated since you yourself believe repealing ObamaCare is itself a government solution. Note the not so subtle difference between the solution to Obama care is repeal and the solution to other problems.. well that may or may not be repeal.. one would have to specify what specific problem we are talking about, no?

The government has fucked up our health care system, so it is an unavoidable fact it will require government to unfuck it up. It will require government action to solve the problems.

Now, to repeat myself for your sake in the hopes it will finally get through to you, I believe we need to remove government from health care as much as possible. This will take a lot of legislation to achieve.

Again health care is too big a subject and "as much as possible" is subjective. So your statements have pretty much no meaning. Your statement is a political campaign slogan.

The irony of this is the GOP will have to act hypocritically. After whining that ObamaCare legislation was "too many pages", it will take a lot more pages to undo the damage that has accumulated over the past century.

Redacting regulations is done all the time and is a simple matter. Some level of complexity may be involved to return edited regulations to their prior state, but again not rocket science.

Just as an aside, the GOP could not have done more to shoot itself in the foot by openly admitting that reading a lot is just too mentally challenging when they whined about page count. "We're just too dumb to want to read that much!" That's the message I got, and probably most people got.

The message I got was the democrats did not want to spend time reading amending and discussing the bill with republicans. The democrats were giddy with power. That's the message I got.

Here is my position. And you can search this forum going back years, and you will find I have consistently said this since I arrived here: We need to eliminate employer sponsored health insurance, and everyone should be buying their health insurance the same way they buy their home, auto, and life insurance.

I responded to this idea of yours before. I'm my own employer, why can't I have health insurance? Corporations can and do buy life insurance, home, and auto insurance for their employees, you are wrong on your assumptions. If a corporation can afford to cover the health care needs of it's employees what's wrong with them providing that benefit to their employees? It's nothing more than a benefit offered to employees. Why are you against employee benefits? Are you also against all forms of income, or just this one?

Now what do I mean by "eliminate employer sponsored health insurance"? Some people might thing I just said "ban employer sponsored health insurance". But that is not what I am saying. I would not outlaw it. That would be government involvement, right?

No, I would just take away the massive tax exemption for employer sponsored health insurance. The tax exemption is an artificial government support. This is a HUGE government tit. Huge government involvement in the market place. And as a result, the cost curve of health insurance is bent upward.

Take away the tax exemption, and you take away the incentive for employer sponsored health insurance to exist. It would die a natural and long overdue death.

Just ask any economist, they will tell you that employer sponsored health insurance is one of the biggest drivers of rising health care costs.

In summary you don't want to allow for tax deductions on health care costs. You want people to pay for health care after tax. For example, if I get a few million dollars in health care coverage for a series of heart and cancer operations you want the money earned to pay for said health care to be taxed first.

So. You pick up your phone and call any health insurance provider in the country and choose your insurance options for yourself. You have bargaining power because there would be a galaxy of other companies competing with each other just like there is for auto, home, and life insurance.

I can do this today. As a matter of fact I have done so many times in my life. Do you need a link?

Today, you are completely hostage to what your employer offers. And your employer is hostage to the government deliberately limiting the health care networks they have access to. All of this drives up cost.

Nonsense. For a couple years I actually turned down employer coverage because I was able to get it cheaper on my own than through my employer even with him paying for 2/3 the costs. Then my boss switched to HSA plans and now I'm on his plan because he was able to take advantage of the lower rates on HSA high deductible plans. Again, you are making incorrect general assumptions that may or may not be correct in various scenarios.

Not only that, the government is deeply embedded in the health care market in myriad ways, and it gets to write the rules for its competitors! We've all seen how that has worked out.

That's pretty fucked up.

So there you go.

And I am serious. Go back and look over the years at my posts on health care. You will find I have been totally consistent in my positions.

A part of the problem is your use of terms like "problem" and "solution" without ascribing what the hell you mean by "problem" and "solution." You clearly understand the difference between problems that people may have in getting and paying for health care from health care professionals, such as through health insurance, and problems created by government regarding same. But when you talk about them you talk about them all as the same problem requiring the same solutions when they are clearly different.

Additionally your posts are way too long, covering way to many different broad subjects to engender any reasonable response given this particular medium. However, I'll post some comments to the above in blue.

Cheers, Mike

 

[g5000]

A part of the problem is your use of terms like "problem" and "solution" without ascribing what the hell you mean by "problem" and "solution." You clearly understand the difference between problems that people may have in getting and paying for health care from health care professionals, such as through health insurance, and problems created by government regarding same. But when you talk about them you talk about them all as the same problem requiring the same solutions when they are clearly different.

This is why I say COMPREHENSIVE solutions. Big problems require big solutions that must be wide ranging and comprehensive.

The GOP has never put anything even close to that on the table with respect to health care.

And that is one chief reason we have ObamaCare. The Republicans suffer from the delusion that if you ignore a problem, it will go away. The Democrats suffer from the delusion that any "solution" is better than no solution.

The American people have suffered under these idiotic philosophies long enough.

Additionally your posts are way too long, covering way to many different broad subjects to engender any reasonable response given this particular medium.

It's a giant problem. It needs giant answers.

 

[RKMBrown]

A part of the problem is your use of terms like "problem" and "solution" without ascribing what the hell you mean by "problem" and "solution." You clearly understand the difference between problems that people may have in getting and paying for health care from health care professionals, such as through health insurance, and problems created by government regarding same. But when you talk about them you talk about them all as the same problem requiring the same solutions when they are clearly different.

This is why I say COMPREHENSIVE solutions.

What the hell does "comprehensive" solutions mean? Solve what? Why comprehensive? WTF are you talking about?

Big problems require big solutions that must be wide ranging and comprehensive.

What big problems? What problems are you talking about? You are just rambling on and on like chicken little. We have to fix it we have to fix it the sky is falling...

The GOP has never put anything even close to that on the table with respect to health care.

What is "that?" What are you talking about? ACA? Are you daft? The GOP had numerous bills proposed to solve issues regarding health care. Why are you making up lies?

And that is one chief reason we have ObamaCare.

Wrong, the reason we have ObamaCare is the rebound from Bush's wars in the middle east that gave democrats both houses and the white house, which had nothing to do with health care. That and democrats want more free shit.

The Republicans suffer from the delusion that if you ignore a problem, it will go away. The Democrats suffer from the delusion that any "solution" is better than no solution.

Complete nonsense. Republicans and democrats are not suffering from an such delusions. You are projecting.

The American people have suffered under these idiotic philosophies long enough.

What idiotic philosophies are you talking about?

Additionally your posts are way too long, covering way to many different broad subjects to engender any reasonable response given this particular medium.

It's a giant problem. It needs giant answers.

Again, nearly all of your statements are nothing more than empty campaign slogans. Again, comments in blue.

 

[g5000]

I responded to this idea of yours before. I'm my own employer, why can't I have health insurance? Corporations can and do buy life insurance, home, and auto insurance for their employees, you are wrong on your assumptions. If a corporation can afford to cover the health care needs of it's employees what's wrong with them providing that benefit to their employees? It's nothing more than a benefit offered to employees. Why are you against employee benefits? Are you also against all forms of income, or just this one?

I went out of my way to say that employer benefits would not be banned. If you want to sponsor health insurance to your employees, go right ahead!

But if you want a gigantic government subsidy to help you do that, then I can't take you seriously as a conservative or believe you when you say you are against government interference in the marketplace.

In summary you don't want to allow for tax deductions on health care costs. You want people to pay for health care after tax. For example, if I get a few million dollars in health care coverage for a series of heart and cancer operations you want the money earned to pay for said health care to be taxed first.

In summary, I am against all tax expenditures. A tax exemption for an employee benefit is a government handout. In fact, that current exemption is one of the biggest government handouts in the budget.

By eliminating the $1.2 trillion given out annually in the form of these government handouts, we can lower the tax rates for everyone in America. And we would eliminate the insane system we have right now where people earning identical incomes are paying radically differing amounts of taxes. Double-plus bonus: Ban the handouts, you remove the incentive of special interests to donate cash to politicians to acquire those handouts.

 

[The Rabbi]

A part of the problem is your use of terms like "problem" and "solution" without ascribing what the hell you mean by "problem" and "solution." You clearly understand the difference between problems that people may have in getting and paying for health care from health care professionals, such as through health insurance, and problems created by government regarding same. But when you talk about them you talk about them all as the same problem requiring the same solutions when they are clearly different.

This is why I say COMPREHENSIVE solutions. Big problems require big solutions that must be wide ranging and comprehensive.

The GOP has never put anything even close to that on the table with respect to health care.

And that is one chief reason we have ObamaCare. The Republicans suffer from the delusion that if you ignore a problem, it will go away. The Democrats suffer from the delusion that any "solution" is better than no solution.

The American people have suffered under these idiotic philosophies long enough.

Additionally your posts are way too long, covering way to many different broad subjects to engender any reasonable response given this particular medium.

It's a giant problem. It needs giant answers.

Bullshit.
There is no "giant solution" that anyone in government could craft that would solve every, or almost every, problem. That's what the free market is for. Get rid of government restrictions and health care would flourish with people finding their own best solutions.

 

[RKMBrown]

I responded to this idea of yours before. I'm my own employer, why can't I have health insurance? Corporations can and do buy life insurance, home, and auto insurance for their employees, you are wrong on your assumptions. If a corporation can afford to cover the health care needs of it's employees what's wrong with them providing that benefit to their employees? It's nothing more than a benefit offered to employees. Why are you against employee benefits? Are you also against all forms of income, or just this one?

I went out of my way to say that employer benefits would not be banned. If you want to sponsor health insurance to your employees, go right ahead!

But if you want a gigantic government subsidy to help you do that, then I can't take you seriously as a conservative or believe you when you say you are against government interference in the marketplace.

In summary you don't want to allow for tax deductions on health care costs. You want people to pay for health care after tax. For example, if I get a few million dollars in health care coverage for a series of heart and cancer operations you want the money earned to pay for said health care to be taxed first.

In summary, I am against all tax expenditures. A tax exemption for an employee benefit is a government handout. In fact, that current exemption is one of the biggest government handouts in the budget.

By eliminating the $1.2 trillion given out annually in the form of these government handouts, we can lower the tax rates for everyone in America. And we would eliminate the insane system we have right now where people earning identical incomes are paying radically differing amounts of taxes. Double-plus bonus: Ban the handouts, you remove the incentive of special interests to donate cash to politicians to acquire those handouts.

Ok so instead of talking about health care regulations you want to talk about flat tax proposals and getting rid of tax exemptions for health care costs. Yeah sure whatever. I'm not married to tax exemptions, just bring the tax rates down when you do it commensurate with the adjustment. I believe it was the republicans talking about flat tax or lowering tax rates commensurate with removing exemptions, no?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Christie is the Republicans best hope.

No, he's yours. That's precisely what the Left wants is a Leftist president. Hell, you picked our last two candidates, so why not stick with what works, right?

He isn't a Democrat. You should learn to like him, he is one who could beat Hillary. Nobody else can.

Actually, they all can. Hillary "what difference does it make" Clinton has more baggage than Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain combined. There isn't a single potential contender I would worry about.

So no, we don't need Crisco Christie.

And you suck at political analysis.

 

[Sarah G]

Christie is the Republicans best hope.

No, he's yours. That's precisely what the Left wants is a Leftist president. Hell, you picked our last two candidates, so why not stick with what works, right?

He isn't a Democrat. You should learn to like him, he is one who could beat Hillary. Nobody else can.

Actually, they all can. Hillary "what difference does it make" Clinton has more baggage than Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain combined. There isn't a single potential contender I would worry about.

So no, we don't need Crisco Christie.

And you suck at political analysis.

I don't suck at it, I love political analysis and I'm good at it. Have you seen the exploratory polling? Nobody can touch Hillary except maybe, Chris Christie. Republicans have nobody. Your candidates are all idiots or they bore everyone to tears.

You'll see Big Bill in the White House again, mark my words...

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Christie is the Republicans best hope.

No, he's yours. That's precisely what the Left wants is a Leftist president. Hell, you picked our last two candidates, so why not stick with what works, right?

He isn't a Democrat. You should learn to like him, he is one who could beat Hillary. Nobody else can.

Actually, they all can. Hillary "what difference does it make" Clinton has more baggage than Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain combined. There isn't a single potential contender I would worry about.

So no, we don't need Crisco Christie.

And you suck at political analysis.

I don't suck at it, I love political analysis and I'm good at it. Have you seen the exploratory polling? Nobody can touch Hillary except maybe, Chris Christie. Republicans have nobody. Your candidates are all idiots or they bore everyone to tears.

You'll see Big Bill in the White House again, mark my words...

You got it wrong. The Republican field has many young, vibrant contenders, many of them true conservatives, one of which will emerge during the primaries. Consider the pathetic state of the Democrat Party where there are no Democrats under 55 years and you have to resort to picking between dinosaurs from an era past. I hope your Hildabeast runs and I hope that her Botox injections fail right in the middle of a televised debate so people can really see who they're voting for.

We'll just keep flashing this on our ads. I'm sure the message will sink in.

 

[The Rabbi]

Christie is the Republicans best hope.

No, he's yours. That's precisely what the Left wants is a Leftist president. Hell, you picked our last two candidates, so why not stick with what works, right?

He isn't a Democrat. You should learn to like him, he is one who could beat Hillary. Nobody else can.

Actually, they all can. Hillary "what difference does it make" Clinton has more baggage than Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain combined. There isn't a single potential contender I would worry about.

So no, we don't need Crisco Christie.

And you suck at political analysis.

I don't suck at it, I love political analysis and I'm good at it. Have you seen the exploratory polling? Nobody can touch Hillary except maybe, Chris Christie. Republicans have nobody. Your candidates are all idiots or they bore everyone to tears.

You'll see Big Bill in the White House again, mark my words...

No, he's right. Your political analysis seems to consist of "everyone else thinks just like I do."

 

[bendog]

I responded to this idea of yours before. I'm my own employer, why can't I have health insurance? Corporations can and do buy life insurance, home, and auto insurance for their employees, you are wrong on your assumptions. If a corporation can afford to cover the health care needs of it's employees what's wrong with them providing that benefit to their employees? It's nothing more than a benefit offered to employees. Why are you against employee benefits? Are you also against all forms of income, or just this one?

I went out of my way to say that employer benefits would not be banned. If you want to sponsor health insurance to your employees, go right ahead!

But if you want a gigantic government subsidy to help you do that, then I can't take you seriously as a conservative or believe you when you say you are against government interference in the marketplace.

In summary you don't want to allow for tax deductions on health care costs. You want people to pay for health care after tax. For example, if I get a few million dollars in health care coverage for a series of heart and cancer operations you want the money earned to pay for said health care to be taxed first.

In summary, I am against all tax expenditures. A tax exemption for an employee benefit is a government handout. In fact, that current exemption is one of the biggest government handouts in the budget.

By eliminating the $1.2 trillion given out annually in the form of these government handouts, we can lower the tax rates for everyone in America. And we would eliminate the insane system we have right now where people earning identical incomes are paying radically differing amounts of taxes. Double-plus bonus: Ban the handouts, you remove the incentive of special interests to donate cash to politicians to acquire those handouts.

Ok so instead of talking about health care regulations you want to talk about flat tax proposals and getting rid of tax exemptions for health care costs. Yeah sure whatever. I'm not married to tax exemptions, just bring the tax rates down when you do it commensurate with the adjustment. I believe it was the republicans talking about flat tax or lowering tax rates commensurate with removing exemptions, no?

I respect G5000 and he may well be right on exemptions, but it's been a political nonstarter to mess with the mortgage interest deduction, and that is the elephant in the room. Not just with voters, but special interests are into it up to their porky little chins.

And I'm certainly not against all tax expenditures. Even the Founders found some are necessary for the survival of society.

 

[Sarah G]

Christie is the Republicans best hope.

No, he's yours. That's precisely what the Left wants is a Leftist president. Hell, you picked our last two candidates, so why not stick with what works, right?

He isn't a Democrat. You should learn to like him, he is one who could beat Hillary. Nobody else can.

Actually, they all can. Hillary "what difference does it make" Clinton has more baggage than Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain combined. There isn't a single potential contender I would worry about.

So no, we don't need Crisco Christie.

And you suck at political analysis.

I don't suck at it, I love political analysis and I'm good at it. Have you seen the exploratory polling? Nobody can touch Hillary except maybe, Chris Christie. Republicans have nobody. Your candidates are all idiots or they bore everyone to tears.

You'll see Big Bill in the White House again, mark my words...

You got it wrong. The Republican field has many young, vibrant contenders, many of them true conservatives, one of which will emerge during the primaries. Consider the pathetic state of the Democrat Party where there are no Democrats under 55 years and you have to resort to picking between dinosaurs from an era past. I hope your Hildabeast runs and I hope that her Botox injections fail right in the middle of a televised debate so people can really see who they're voting for.

We'll just keep flashing this on our ads. I'm sure the message will sink in.

We'll keep flashing your guys' responses to the SOTU.

Benghazi is over, America never picked up that ball and ran with it. What else you got?

 

[g5000]

In summary you don't want to allow for tax deductions on health care costs. You want people to pay for health care after tax. For example, if I get a few million dollars in health care coverage for a series of heart and cancer operations you want the money earned to pay for said health care to be taxed first.

Here you are plainly asking for health insurance to be treated differently than auto, home, and life insurance. We all buy our auto, home, and life insurance with after tax income. You want a subsidy for health insurance.

So. You pick up your phone and call any health insurance provider in the country and choose your insurance options for yourself. You have bargaining power because there would be a galaxy of other companies competing with each other just like there is for auto, home, and life insurance.

I can do this today. As a matter of fact I have done so many times in my life. Do you need a link?

Do you need a pair of glasses? Turn on the TV. Notice all those ads from Progressive and GEICO and Allstate and the other insurance companies? We are all familiar with Flo and the the gecko and the well hung voice of Dennis Haysbert.

Have you noticed not one of them advertises health insurance? You just don't see health insurance ads.

You know why? Because the private sector cannot compete with the massive government subsidy employer sponsored health insurance gets. And just like so many other government interferences, that subsidy drives costs up for everyone.

 

[g5000]

I respect G5000 and he may well be right on exemptions, but it's been a political nonstarter to mess with the mortgage interest deduction, and that is the elephant in the room. Not just with voters, but special interests are into it up to their porky little chins.

Indeed. Our government is completely owned by those special interests.

Just like the health insurance tax exemption causes higher health care costs, the mortgage interest deduction causes higher home prices.

And I'm certainly not against all tax expenditures. Even the Founders found some are necessary for the survival of society.

I would be interested to know what carve outs this monolithic "Founders" supported.

I personally could live with the continuation of the earned income credit, as that has been shown to actually motivate people to earn more money (be more productive).

 

[g5000]

Anyway, if only one thing comes of this, I hope this topic has disillusioned anyone who mistakenly believed I am liberal.

Y'all have a happy new year!

 

[RKMBrown]

In summary you don't want to allow for tax deductions on health care costs. You want people to pay for health care after tax. For example, if I get a few million dollars in health care coverage for a series of heart and cancer operations you want the money earned to pay for said health care to be taxed first.

Here you are plainly asking for health insurance to be treated differently than auto, home, and life insurance. We all buy our auto, home, and life insurance with after tax income. You want a subsidy for health insurance.

So. You pick up your phone and call any health insurance provider in the country and choose your insurance options for yourself. You have bargaining power because there would be a galaxy of other companies competing with each other just like there is for auto, home, and life insurance.

I can do this today. As a matter of fact I have done so many times in my life. Do you need a link?

Do you need a pair of glasses? Turn on the TV. Notice all those ads from Progressive and GEICO and Allstate and the other insurance companies? We are all familiar with Flo and the the gecko and the well hung voice of Dennis Haysbert.

Have you noticed not one of them advertises health insurance? You just don't see health insurance ads.

You know why? Because the private sector cannot compete with the massive government subsidy employer sponsored health insurance gets. And just like so many other government interferences, that subsidy drives costs up for everyone.

Serious question, are you retarded?

 

[Skylar]

I predict its WAY to fucking early to predict anything for 2016

 

[Sarah G]

I predict its WAY to fucking early to predict anything for 2016

Not really.

 

[Skylar]

I predict its WAY to fucking early to predict anything for 2016

Not really.

We don't even know who is going to be alive in 2016. And 18 months is a political eternity, assuming that everyone is alive to slug it out.

Its guesswork. There's not enough data yet to make useful protections.

 

[Sarah G]

I predict its WAY to fucking early to predict anything for 2016

Not really.

We don't even know who is going to be alive in 2016. And 18 months is a political eternity, assuming that everyone is alive to slug it out.

Its guesswork. There's not enough data yet to make useful protections.

HaHa We assume they are going to be alive. It is 2015.