Magox

You are going to have to forgive me for the question, what is an EMR? Electronic Medical Record?

It's a "win-win" for the employees, however it's a lose-lose for the US taxpayer and federal debt.

Ah, I see queen race baiter has returned.

The forensic pathologist that testified two days ago, sealed the case for any rational thinking individual.

Manslaughter is what they should have tried to convict him of, but unfortunately they were too overzealous and I don't see how they could possibly convict him of murder. To me it appears he walks

What's even funnier is that before the law passed, liberals were promising that rates would be lower than what it is today, now that they see that this won't happen, the argument they are making is that the plans are going to be stronger and will cover more than the plans of today... Yes, that may be true, but many people don't need stronger plans, many people just want a catastrophic plan and don't want to pay for policies that are similar to first-dollar coverage plans. The biggest irony in all this is that they desperately NEED younger, healthier men to enroll in these plans, to even out and lower premiums because of all the sick people that will be entering into the risk pools, yet the very same people they NEED to enroll will be getting hammered the most (relative to what they are paying today), in other words they are disincentivizing and discouraging these folks with substantially higher premiums. Now you tell me, are these young fellas gonna want to pick up a health plan with more benefits than they need at these rates? Or are they gonna decide to pay the measly fine?

Btw, the preliminary results are in for Ohio's new exchange. And it is expected to see an 88% increase over what it is today. Avg. individual policy in Ohio will be north of $400. Today the average policy in Ohio today is around $240. http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/06/10/ohio-dept-of-insurance-obamacare-to-increase-individual-market-health-premiums-by-88-percent/ Yaaaay for Obamacare!!!!

It's funny, when I read this thread, it reminds me of bizarro world. People from the left, moving to the right, people from the right, moving to the left. etc. One thing is for certain, if this would have happened under Bush, Bizarro world would cease to exist in this thread, and everyone would have gone back to their predictable corners.

You are implying that the growing wealth gap causes people to eat less. This is demonstrably false. I read a great piece in the ECONOMIST the other day, that is loaded with factual data. Read'em and weep. " Nearly 1 billion people have been taken out of extreme poverty in 20 years. The world should aim to do the same againIN HIS inaugural address in 1949 Harry Truman said that “more than half the people in the world are living in conditions approaching misery. For the first time in history, humanity possesses the knowledge and skill to relieve the suffering of those people.” It has taken much longer than Truman hoped, but the world has lately been making extraordinary progress in lifting people out of extreme poverty. Between 1990 and 2010, their number fell by half as a share of the total population in developing countries, from 43% to 21%—a reduction of almost 1 billion people." "The world’s achievement in the field of poverty reduction is, by almost any measure, impressive. Although many of the original MDGs—such as cutting maternal mortality by three-quarters and child mortality by two-thirds—will not be met, the aim of halving global poverty between 1990 and 2015 was achieved five years early. The MDGs may have helped marginally, by creating a yardstick for measuring progress, and by focusing minds on the evil of poverty. Most of the credit, however, must go to capitalism and free trade, for they enable economies to grow—and it was growth, principally, that has eased destitution. Poverty rates started to collapse towards the end of the 20th century largely because developing-country growth accelerated, from an average annual rate of 4.3% in 1960-2000 to 6% in 2000-10. Around two-thirds of poverty reduction within a country comes from growth. Greater equality also helps, contributing the other third. A 1% increase in incomes in the most unequal countries produces a mere 0.6% reduction in poverty; in the most equal countries, it yields a 4.3% cut. " http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-billion-people-have-been-taken-out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim

About a week or so ago, I was reading from Progressive quarters that the preliminary results (Krugman, Ezra Klein, Cohn) had come in for the health care exchange out of California, and surprise surprise! The rates were going to be anywhere from 2% higher to 29% lower. "This is a home run for consumers in every region of California," said Peter Lee, the director of the state exchange. "These rates are way below the worst-case gloom-and-doom scenarios we have heard." I gotta admit, when I read this, I was a bit surprised. It just didn't make sense, and I began to think, there has gotta to be something missing here. Then Avrik Roy who is an healthcare analyst with Forbes, made a itsy bitsy discovery. They were comparing ObamaCare insurance to the state's current small-business market where regulations similar to ObamaCare have already been imposed. Talk about misleading. Once again, the likes of people like Krugman was on the wrong side of the equation, making false misleading arguments. " The conservative analyst Avik Roy consulted current rates on the eHealthInsurance website and discovered that the cheapest ObamaCare plan for a typical 25-year-old man is roughly 64% to 117% more expensive than the five cheapest policies sold today. For a 40 year old, it's 73% to 146%. Stanford economist Dan Kessler adds his observations nearby. We wouldn't be shocked if California deliberately abused statistics in the hopes that no one would notice that in some cases premiums would more than double. In any case, the turn among the liberals who touted the fake results has been educational." http://online.wsj.co...Opinion_LEADTop

Explain how the examples brought up by lybob and other instances of the "rigging" of the system is having a substantive, meaningful impact on a large scale on the ever-growing gap in wages. I already know the answer to this, to borrow a phrase, there is no there, there. You and possibly Lybob are doing is conflating the two, and what you guys are bringing up are instances, in some cases injustices, but in the overall scheme of things, these are not meaningful contributors to the wage gap that we are seeing..... Which is what we are talking about. Do you understand the difference? I've already explained what the main contributors are, and it's primarily globalization, advances in technology and investments in stocks and private equity. Having access to private equity and special investment funds isn't any sort of injustice or a rigging of the system, it simply just means they have enough money to have this access. Nothing wrong with that. Again, and I can guarantee you this, none of the solutions or even direction that you are looking at towards trying to find a culprit will never be remotely close to where the solutions lie. You are looking to try to bring down the wealthy. Whereas the solution lies in empowering the non-wealthy with skills, education and more than anything self-motivation and desire to climb up the socio economic latter. That's where it's at.

No, what's silly is that You're conflating two separate entities. I didn't say nothing nefarious happened in finance, what I said was that nothing nefarious is going on in the overall scheme of the separation of the income disparity between rich and poor via investment income. Those that abused the system in the world of finance are not responsible on a meaningful level for the widening income disparity, those are instances. Big difference. In regards to your "rigged" statement... Tell me how the system is "rigged", please explain this I'd be interested to hear your answer. Remember what we are talking about, we are talking about income disparity on a wide scale level, so any examples you bring up, keep that in mind. In regards to your issues about food scarcity, those countries that have these issues lack proper infrastructure, capital and geographical resources to produce food. It's a problem, and sure there are abuses from people who want to take advantage of workers, but that is an issue that will have to be resolved from within their own governments. However, after living in Bolivia for a number of years, I can tell you that there are many able-working people, who simply do not desire to work, and would rather pan handle for sustenance.

So how are the blue dog democrats doing?

I'd simply say that not everyone has a desire to achieve or at least have the desire to put the work into doing what's necessary to achieve. There will always be a decent sized segment of the population that just don't want to do what it takes to reach the next level. You can apply this statement that I just made not just for those that are "poor", but for many in the lower economic "middle class" as well. Too many people are content with where they are. I don't mean "content" so much as that they believe their economic situation is acceptable, but content in the sense that they aren't willing to go the extra mile to do what it takes to climb up the latter. In my experiences, and I'm pretty sure this is the case broadly speaking that many people simply aren't cut out to "achieve" in life. They just don't have it in them or at the very least have developed bad habits that inhibit them from succeeding. In any real attempt to somehow lift them up through wealth distribution is futile. Now I'm not saying that there shouldn't be safety nets for those that who indeed need it. Such as the TRULY disabled, many seniors and those that are in need of short-term assistance to get them up on their feet when **** happens. But the abuse of the safety nets does in my view do the exact opposite of it's intended purpose, which is to help support those in TRUE need. What happens is that when people abuse the system, it becomes a way to sustain their lives, living off the government, with no true desire to do what it takes to get themselves off of government assistance. This is not the way the system was intended to work. Now of course, this is a two pronged issue, one is those trying to climb up from the lower tiers, and those that are already elevated and are in the top 1%. Of course the dramatic separation is primarily coming from the top 1%, their incomes are continuing to rise sharply, whereas many in the middle to lower economic class are remaining stagnant. So what gives? Well for starters Globalization. While Globalization has been a negative for many of those in the "middle class" here in the US that work within many of these industries, it has been a positive for many people in the countries where the jobs have been shipped to. This is just a part of reality, it is evolution. So rather than complain about it, you adapt. How do you adapt? Well it goes back to what I was talking about earlier, having an internal desire to do what it takes to climb higher. Yes, I understand for many, this is all that they knew how to do, so it's easy for me to say to just simply "adapt", but what options do you have? It is what it is, and you do what it takes. Then another culprit for the separation of incomes is investment income ie. stocks. With the printing presses working 24/7 with uber low interest rates, it's been a very conducive time to invest in stocks, not to mention I was reading that many of the homes that are being purchased on the market have been coming from private equity firms. Is there something nefarious about these activities? Again, it's simply just a result of the conditions. Through no fault of those taking advantage of these conditions, that's just the way things are. What about technology? No doubt that robotics and software are decreasing the demand for human physical capital. It's another step of the economic evolutionary process we are in. I'm sure you are well-intentioned with your concerns, but you truly are wasting your time looking for bogeymen. They don't exist, at least in the sense of there being any sort of malign force out there purposely trying to foster these conditions. Rather than focus on the rich birddog, you would be better served in trying to focus on the poor and middle class, and stop looking at them as victims, and look to advocate and search for ways in how they can climb up the socio economic latter.

On a pilgrimage to Ronald Reagan’s presidential library, Rand Paul prodded Republicans Friday to become more inclusive. “When the Republican Party looks like the rest of America, we will win again,” the Kentucky senator told a crowd in Simi Valley, Calif. “When we have people with tattoos and without tattoos, with ties and without ties, with suits and in blue jeans, then we win nationally.” During a question-and-answer session, Paul said the GOP must “adapt, evolve or die.” “If we want to win nationally again, we will have to reach out to a diverse nation and welcome African Americans, Asians, Latinos into our party,” he said. “Latinos will come to the GOP when we treat them with dignity, when we embrace immigrants as hard workers who are an asset to our country.” Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/rand-paul-reagan-library-speech-92095.html#ixzz2Uygd6LXx Pretty much my feelings.

A few questions. And if you could, if you could expand on your answers more than just observations and conclusions. What is the "system" that you talk about? Keep in mind, that this is a global occurrence. How would you propose to close the gap between the ultra rich and the rest of the world? Would it include some sort of hard cap, a tangible figure where it would get confiscated or taxed at an even higher rate? If so, at about what tax rate and what roughly around where would this cap be? a million, 10, 100? Do you propose a global or domestic wealth distribution sort of scheme? And if so, how so? I'm curious to hear some of these answers or anything else that you would wish to share related to how you believe we could achieve this.

What kinda mickey mouse bull **** was that?

Except you were conflating JA's post with your preconceived thoughts, which didn't jive with what he and I had been saying. His was a synopsis of the TP's woes, yours was an overall wholly separate and differing conclusion that in reality didn't closely relate to what was being said.

That wasn't what JA and I were saying...We said one thing, and then you said this, which is a completely separate thought.

"Minnesota businessman Jim Graves, a top Democratic recruit who had been planning a rematch against Rep. Michele Bachmann next year, abruptly suspended his campaign Friday morning — two days after Bachmann announced she wouldn’t be seeking reelection. Graves, who nearly knocked off Bachmann in November, launched his campaign last month and was in Washington last week to meet with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. He released a poll showing him with a slight lead over Bachmann in a 2014 rematch. But with the controversial Bachmann out of the race, Graves faced an even tougher path in a conservative suburban Twin Cities district broke for Mitt Romney by nearly 15 percent." Read more: http://www.politico....l#ixzz2Ut6x4gaw

While all this may be true, whatever the case may be, they have an image issue, and it's incumbent upon tea party leadership to improve that image....If they decide to ignore this reality, the tea party for the most part will become a part of the party that wins in only gerrymandered districts and conservative states.

Sorta, their economic message is decent, but they are too obsessed with short-term debt reduction. While deficit reduction is very important, it's not seen nearly as important as economic growth, or one's own personal employment situation. For a lot of people, they know having too much debt is a bad thing, but they really don't understand how. They hear that it's harmful, yet they don't really see the effects of it, whereas economic growth and jobs is something that they tangibly see and feel. Now I'm not making an argument to abandon debt reduction, it's a very important issue and one that if debt gets out of control, will have huge ramifications to it. What I'm saying is that the party should talk about growth and jobs first and foremost, and then communicate it effectively in how that can improve one's personal situation, more so to the lower and middle class, and that it could give you more opportunities in climbing the economic latter. And then Segway that in how pro growth policies, while eliminating wasteful programs and having a clear vision on entitlement reform will help lead this country to long-term economic sustainability. And since we are (or at least I am) talking about brand, the tea party has a big branding issue. Again, right or wrong, public opinion on the tea party has consistently been in the deep red over the past couple years, although they have recently received a bump, I'm guessing because of the IRS deal.

While I appreciate the facetiousness of your post, cosmetic changes to the party aren't what is needed.

I don't have a problem with social conservatives, there is obviously a large constituency who wants to have their voices heard, where I have a problem with some social conservatives is when they begin to say bat schitt crazy loony tune comments that hurt the conservative movement. Let's put it this way, and this is a fact that some of you fail to grasp, which is BRAND MATTERS! There is a huge branding issue with the GOP, young people and non whites generally don't like Republicans. Right or wrong, they think they are the party of non-science, the party that protects the rich and the party that generally speaking doesn't care about the poor and non-whites. That's their view, not mine. So it's important to re brand the party so that they can win state wide and national elections, so that they can implement their economic conservative agenda. Doesn't mean you have to give up your conservative economic principles, at all, just means you have to be politically smarter. For instance, get more in tune with people outside of your main constituency, which primarily consists of mid to older aged whites. Communicate more effectively your economic message, the conservative economic message is a stronger one to make than the liberal one. Don't just talk about debt reduction, talk about growth, a la Jack Kemp. Reforming the tax code, communicating how more economic opportunities can arise so that you can climb up the social economic latter under conservative leadership. Stay away from the social issues. It's a political loser on the national level... The times are changing, and the party that doesn't change with the times, will get left behind. Like it or not, politics matter.