The Affordable Care Act II - Because Mr. Obama Loves You All

[IDBillzFan]

Your tax dollars at work: Did Oregon fake the status on their website production to get their government funding???

 

Nothing to see here, folks. All is well.

[DC Tom]

Your tax dollars at work: Did Oregon fake the status on their website production to get their government funding???

 

Nothing to see here, folks. All is well.

 

Based on that article, it's abundantly clear what happened: management doesn't know **** about IT development, and now it's the IT manager's fault they don't have a !@#$ing clue.

 

That's the worst analogy of "waterfall" vs. "iterative" lifecycles I've ever seen - and I guarantee you the gov't managers were equally confused on the two processes, to the point where they couldn't even understand the purpose of the gateway reviews or what they were being presented, and thus assumed progress that wasn't being made. I know, because it happens to me every !@#$ing day ("This is not a working web page, it's just a mockup so we can clarify some of your requirements." "Wow...you're already done with that? We're way ahead of schedule..." "No, no, NO, you !@#$ing morons! We're not done, we're not even started. We're still trying to get you to tell us what you want!")

[OCinBuffalo]

except that it isn't: http://finance.yahoo...-202655235.html. it's a recurring theme: things are almost nerver as simple as you all make them out to be.

That article is the worst piece of political analysis I've ever read. The man routinely loses his own argument, to himself, often in the same paragraph.

 

The WH Chief Economist was rushed out to deal with this immediately today. Why? Again, forget the chatter: observe the behavior.

 

Why would they do that if this is all no big deal? Yeah, yeah, rapid D reponse from Yahoo. That article is absurd: the Middle class ends up with less take home pay? And that's no big deal? Serriously: WTF? Again, conginitive dissonance appears to be a highly infectious disease amongst Ds. Since when is any winning D national strategy not based on saying "middle class" 5000 times? The Democratic party being on record as hurting every single middle class family, and doing it consistently with no plan to stop/curtail that behavior = no big deal....in an article where the author purports to be the voice of reason? Dissonance.

 

"That’s one reason Obamacare is likely to be controversial for years to come." The man says "years to come", as if a long-standing, every American effecting, massive, loser political issue is something to be ignored, because we can just call it "controversial" and that makes it all better? Remind me not to hire this guy to do any abstract thinking, in any capacity. It's as I said: he loses his own argument to himself. It is entertaining to watch him struggle though.

 

Here's reality: the big D donors and big wig Ds(like Hillary) will never allow Obamacare to bury them beyond Obama. As soon a Obama is gone, so is Obamacare. They will simply make the call one day, and that will be the end of it. Or, they are truly nuts/stupid, and in that case? I have not begun to laugh.

 

I mean, hey birdog, you can always nominate Elizabeth Warren. Come on, you know you want to, you know Hillary is about Hillary, and not your idiotic views.

[IDBillzFan]

Hey...remember when everyone was saying Obamacare was going to fail the very people it promised to help? Remember when you were promised you could keep your doctor?

 

Yeah...not so much in the greatest example of Obamacare success...California.

 

LA Times Reports: Ummmm...the doctor's WON'T see you now.

 

The most telling part of the story is buried at the bottom.

 

Berumen said she was seen by a neurosurgeon Thursday — after state regulators intervened on her behalf.

 

I'm curious...will the the state intervene for everyone? If it doesn't, will people die at the hands of federal agency who turned thumbs down on them?

 

Now where have we heard about this before...? Oh, I think it was that group trying to impose its will on the populace.

 

Gitcher popcorn, folks...2014 is going to be brutal.

Edited February 5, 2014 by LABillzFan

[GG]

unfortunately it's not ironic that you miss so many important points here. we don't have a shortage of labor. we have a shortage of jobs. and it will get worse as was so aptly pointed out in the "economist" article that gg recently linked. for all your sides whining about the bad parenting done by the poor, might having one parent at home caring for the kids be preferable to both parents away working to pay for health insurance. i know plenty of folks who work for nothing other than health insurance ( i personally used to employ several). wouldn't it be helpful to the unemployment rate to free up those jobs to heads of households that need the income more than the insurance?

 

Leave it to you to misunderstand the article. The misallocation of jobs by technology was only one item that the Economist cited. Why do you ignore the other parts of the jobs crisis, where the current administration's policies are hurting the jobs market? The CBO report is fairly clear in that.

 

Hey, congratulations on stumbling on something that people have been trying to hammer into your head for years. To an employer, there's virtually no difference in paying wages vs paying benefits. It's all dollars for compensation expense. So now you have a law that incentivizes employers to cut compensation because taxpayers will pick up the rest. It was a financial forecast in 2010 that was as bright as a 100' LED billboard, and only now you morons are waking up to it.

[birdog1960]

Leave it to you to misunderstand the article. The misallocation of jobs by technology was only one item that the Economist cited. Why do you ignore the other parts of the jobs crisis, where the current administration's policies are hurting the jobs market? The CBO report is fairly clear in that.

 

Hey, congratulations on stumbling on something that people have been trying to hammer into your head for years. To an employer, there's virtually no difference in paying wages vs paying benefits. It's all dollars for compensation expense. So now you have a law that incentivizes employers to cut compensation because taxpayers will pick up the rest. It was a financial forecast in 2010 that was as bright as a 100' LED billboard, and only now you morons are waking up to it.

since b man seems impressed by the number of articles on a subject here's another on the cbo report that argues directly against most of what you said here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/02/04/what-the-cbo-report-on-obamacare-really-found/

[GG]

since b man seems impressed by the number of articles on a subject here's another on the cbo report that argues directly against most of what you said here: http://www.washingto...e-really-found/

 

How about linking the CBO report directly and opining on that?

 

 

"In addition, changes in people’s economic incentives caused by federal tax and spending policies set in current law are expected to keep hours worked and potential output during the next 10 years lower than they would be otherwise."

 

Do you understand what the above says?

[IDBillzFan]

since b man seems impressed by the number of articles on a subject here's another on the cbo report that argues directly against most of what you said here: http://www.washingto...e-really-found/

 

Watching progressives try to untwist their panties on the report issued by the very "non-partisan authority" they manipulated and strongarmed to pass this embarrassing law is one of the sweet juicy moments of Obama's second term. Progs like Waxman are dropping like flies over this burden your party has placed on the American people...and it gives me a bit of hope for the future.

 

But you keep trying to tell everyone that all the headlines about the CBO report are wrong.

Edited February 5, 2014 by LABillzFan

[IDBillzFan]

NYT explains that people losing their jobs over Obamacare is a good thing.

 

LInk here.

 

Favorite Twitter post: The New York Times goes to Ludicrous Speed.

 

The Congressional Budget Office estimated on Tuesday that the Affordable Care Act will reduce the number of full-time workers by 2.5 million over the next decade. That is mostly a good thing, a liberating result of the law. Of course, Republicans immediately tried to brand the findings as “devastating” and stark evidence of President Obama’s health care reform as a failure and a job killer. It is no such thing.

 

The report estimated that — thanks to an increase in insurance coverage under the act and the availability of subsidies to help pay the premiums — many workers who felt obliged to stay in a job that provided health benefits would now be able to leave those jobs or choose to work fewer hours than they otherwise would have. In other words, the report is about the choices workers can make when they are no longer tethered to an employer because of health benefits. The cumulative effect on the labor supply is the equivalent of 2.5 million fewer full-time workers by 2024.

 

Devastating video now making the rounds.

 

http://youtu.be/ql3SXU82WyY

[B-Man]

CBO Head: Obamacare ‘Creates a Disincentive for People to Work’

 

A day after the Congressional Budget Office’s damning report on Obamacare, the agency’s director confirmed that the health-care law discourages people from working.

 

“By providing heavily subsidized health insurance to people with very low income, and then withdrawing those subsidies as income rises, the act creates a disincentive for people to work relative to what would have been the case in the absence of that act,” Douglas Elmendorf told the House Budget Committee on Wednesday. “By providing a subsidy, these people are better off, but they do have less of an incentive to work.”

 

Elmendorf’s comments reflect some of the findings of the CBO’s most recent report, which found the health-care law would reduce employment by the equivalent of about 2.5 million full-time jobs by the end of the decade.

 

 

 

 

.

[Doc]

Libs disincentivizing hard work? Whodathunkit?

[OCinBuffalo]

My very favorite thing about the CBO?

 

31 million nonelderly residents of the United States are likely to be without health insurance in 2024, roughly one out of every nine such residents.

 

Hmm we passed this thing....in order to end up 1 million people worse than it was in 2009? If we are generous, and include popluation growth, then, we are 85% of where we were in 2009. Explain what has been solved by this. I have no friggin clue. How do the "uninsured", the special class of people we just have to F everybody else over to help, benefit...by not being insured?

 

Once again, sing it with me now, "I know that law! It is The Liberal Cleaver. The Biter! The law that slashed a thousand necks". Come on progressives, you know you wan to sing it. It's funny: "Bones will be shattered, necks will be wrung! You'll be beaten and battered, from racks you'll be hung! You will die down here and never be found, down in the deep of Obamacare Town"

Edited February 5, 2014 by OCinBuffalo

[JuanGuzman]

My very favorite thing about the CBO?

 

31 million nonelderly residents of the United States are likely to be without health insurance in 2024, roughly one out of every nine such residents.

 

Hmm we passed this thing....in order to end up 1 million people worse than it was in 2009? If we are generous, and include popluation growth, then, we are 85% of where we were in 2009. Explain what has been solved by this. I have no friggin clue. How do the "uninsured", the special class of people we just have to F everybody else over to help, benefit...by not being insured?

 

Once again, sing it with me now, "I know that law! It is The Liberal Cleaver. The Biter! The law that slashed a thousand necks". Come on progressives, you know you wan to sing it. It's funny: "Bones will be shattered, necks will be wrung! You'll be beaten and battered, from racks you'll be hung! You will die down here and never be found, down in the deep of Obamacare Town"

 

Might as well post the full paragraph:

 

" CBO and JCT estimate that the insurance coverage provisions

of the ACA will markedly increase the number of

nonelderly people who have health insurance—by about

13 million in 2014, 20 million in 2015, and 25 million

in each of the subsequent years through 2024 (see

Table B-2). Still, according to estimates by CBO and

JCT, about 31 million nonelderly residents of the United

States are likely to be without health insurance in 2024,

roughly one out of every nine such residents. Of that

group, about 30 percent are expected to be unauthorized

immigrants and thus ineligible for most Medicaid benefits

and for the exchange subsidies; about 20 percent will

be eligible for Medicaid but will choose not to enroll;

about 5 percent will be ineligible for Medicaid because

they live in a state that has chosen not to expand coverage;

and about 45 percent will not purchase insurance

even though they have access through an employer, an

exchange, or directly from an insurer."

[DC Tom]

Might as well post the full paragraph:

 

" CBO and JCT estimate that the insurance coverage provisions

of the ACA will markedly increase the number of

nonelderly people who have health insurance—by about

13 million in 2014, 20 million in 2015, and 25 million

in each of the subsequent years through 2024 (see

Table B-2). Still, according to estimates by CBO and

JCT, about 31 million nonelderly residents of the United

States are likely to be without health insurance in 2024,

roughly one out of every nine such residents. Of that

group, about 30 percent are expected to be unauthorized

immigrants and thus ineligible for most Medicaid benefits

and for the exchange subsidies; about 20 percent will

be eligible for Medicaid but will choose not to enroll;

about 5 percent will be ineligible for Medicaid because

they live in a state that has chosen not to expand coverage;

and about 45 percent will not purchase insurance

even though they have access through an employer, an

exchange, or directly from an insurer."

 

In other words, not a damn thing has changed.

 

"But it'll cut costs!"

[JuanGuzman]

In other words, not a damn thing has changed.

 

"But it'll cut costs!"

 

What could not possibly understand about: " The ACA will markedly increase the number of nonelderly people who have health insurance"

Its like the exact opposite of not a damn thing has changed.....

[Doc]

Wait, the prediction is that 13M non-elderly people will have health insurance who lacked it before this year? Sorry but I'll wait to see that before I just accept it.

[JuanGuzman]

Wait, the prediction is that 13M non-elderly people will have health insurance who lacked it before this year? Sorry but I'll wait to see that before I just accept it.

 

Sure thats fine by me.

 

One more point about the reduction it affects labour supply not demand:

 

Yes some people are going to stop supplying labour because they no longer need to access to employer health insurance risk pool to get affordable health care. Oh and keep in mind unemployment is still pretty high in this country so if those people drop out of the labour force or reduce hours worked it means that other people currently looking for a job will have a better chance to get that job.

 

I personally don't believe people should have to be chained to an employer to get health insurance. Without ACA that seemed to the case given how high rates were individual health insurance market.

[Doc]

Sure thats fine by me.

 

One more point about the reduction it affects labour supply not demand:

 

Yes some people are going to stop supplying labour because they no longer need to access to employer health insurance risk pool to get affordable health care. Oh and keep in mind unemployment is still pretty high in this country so if those people drop out of the labour force or reduce hours worked it means that other people currently looking for a job will have a better chance to get that job.

 

I personally don't believe people should have to be chained to an employer to get health insurance. Without ACA that seemed to the case given how high rates were individual health insurance market.

What it does is create more part-time workers and more people on government assistance because their jobs aren't paying them enough. All so that they don't have to be "chained" to their full-time job. That's idiotic.

[B-Man]

What could not possibly understand about: " The ACA will markedly increase the number of nonelderly people who have health insurance"

Its like the exact opposite of not a damn thing has changed.....

 

Elderly are people too Juan.

 

.

[keepthefaith]

 

I personally don't believe people should have to be chained to an employer to get health insurance. Without ACA that seemed to the case given how high rates were individual health insurance market.

 

...and you probably don't believe that people should be chained to an employer to get food, clothing, shelter, education or a cell phone. We're near the point in the U.S. (or maybe we are there) where people can simply choose to work or not and if they choose not, those that do choose to work will fund their needs. That reality is totally un-American and counter to the principles of most Americans.

 

Oh, and it's a myth that people couldn't buy health insurance at a fair price without going through an employer before the ACA was passed. I've done it.

 

What could not possibly understand about: " The ACA will markedly increase the number of nonelderly people who have health insurance"

 

Heroin is good too because it lowers blood pressure. We'll ignore all of the bad effects it has.

[DC Tom]

What could not possibly understand about: " The ACA will markedly increase the number of nonelderly people who have health insurance"

Its like the exact opposite of not a damn thing has changed.....

 

"Still, according to estimates by CBO and JCT, about 31 million nonelderly residents of the United States are likely to be without health insurance in 2024, roughly one out of every nine such residents"

[JuanGuzman]

Oh, and it's a myth that people couldn't buy health insurance at a fair price without going through an employer before the ACA was passed. I've done it.

 

 

Heroin is good too because it lowers blood pressure. We'll ignore all of the bad effects it has.

 

 

 

haha oh man you lecture me on ignorance? In one sentence you argue that individual health insurance plans weren't prohibitively expensive and in the next you tell me that I ignore all the bad effects. One of the biggest issues in health care in the last 10 years has been how much its price has outpaced family income growth.

 

I've been very clear on my ACA views, there are costs and there are benefits to it the plan, but the benefits outweigh the costs. The old system was broken buddy.

Edited February 6, 2014 by JuanGuzman

[JuanGuzman]

"Still, according to estimates by CBO and JCT, about 31 million nonelderly residents of the United States are likely to be without health insurance in 2024, roughly one out of every nine such residents"

 

I think you're almost there... you've made the connection that number of uninsured is falling good for you. Now consider that 30 per cent of that number are illegal residents who aren't eligibe. So reduce that number by 9.3 million unless you think obamacare should also cover illegal residents. Then consider that last measure of the number of american citizens without health care was some 50 million in 2011... so without even adjusting for population growth you have dropped the number of uninsured by 60%.

 

Than give Obama a round of applause

Edited February 6, 2014 by JuanGuzman

[Nanker]

The new face of the Democrat party:

[Azalin]

The old system was broken buddy.

two points:

1) quit using such a tiny font.

 

2) 'the old system was broken buddy' - system? who made this system? the government? doctors? pharmacists? all/none of the above? health insurance and medical care is not a system, and people need to stop defining it as such. that's half the problem right there. the electrical grid, interstate highways, servers interfacing the internet, your digestive tract.....those are systems. health insurance is an independent industry, as are the legion of doctors, nurses, and caregivers. regulations placed upon the insurance industry have made it inefficient, and government promises of free medical care (which has been available for decades) for low-income individuals and families have contributed to the rising costs of medical care. the majority of the cause of rising costs in both health insurance and medical care are due to government action, either directly or indirectly. so what is the logical solution to the problem of affordability? why, even more government involvement, of course.

 

nothing will ever get fixed if people continue to look at entire industries as 'systems' and run to the federal government for a solution in fixing them. nothing. in fact, it's only going to screw things up even more.

 

buddy.

[JuanGuzman]

two points:

1) quit using such a tiny font.

 

2) 'the old system was broken buddy' - system? who made this system? the government? doctors? pharmacists? all/none of the above? health insurance and medical care is not a system, and people need to stop defining it as such. that's half the problem right there. the electrical grid, interstate highways, servers interfacing the internet, your digestive tract.....those are systems. health insurance is an independent industry, as are the legion of doctors, nurses, and caregivers. regulations placed upon the insurance industry have made it inefficient, and government promises of free medical care (which has been available for decades) for low-income individuals and families have contributed to the rising costs of medical care. the majority of the cause of rising costs in both health insurance and medical care are due to government action, either directly or indirectly. so what is the logical solution to the problem of affordability? why, even more government involvement, of course.

 

nothing will ever get fixed if people continue to look at entire industries as 'systems' and run to the federal government for a solution in fixing them. nothing. in fact, it's only going to screw things up even more.

 

buddy.

 

There are industries where a completely free market produces the best results, health care is not one of them. Certain industries are prone to market failure and the government by means of power to coerce can actually improve efficiency. Basically Government regulation can be used as a policy to prevent market failureRegulatory constraints on monopoly sellers can contribute to a more efficient market place, requirements to provide adequate information can be used to protect citizen’s health and safety, and forcing factories to internalize costs from pollution can enhance social welfare.

 

This is all economics 101

 

Anyway bud, the individual health insurance market is prone to market failure because of adverse selection. That is individuals have a better idea of their health status than the companies, so insurance companies that offer better plans see sick patients flock to them. The basic positive forces of competition don't work here and as a result insurance company spend more and more time creating administrative process to weed out the sick. That's why you see medicare and medicaid outperform private insurance companies when it comes to administrative costs.

 

Like it or not health care is a system and government action can improve outcomes if done right. If left up to the private sector the the good will be underprovided.

Edited February 6, 2014 by JuanGuzman

[B-Man]

Killing the Work Ethic : Changing people’s incentives doesn’t make them freer.

 

There is a point in almost every debate at which the losing party recognizes its predicament and concludes that its only remaining play is to try to corrupt the language. In Texas, pro-choice hero Wendy Davis has begun, risibly, to describe herself as “pro-life”; in his second inaugural, President Obama cloaked the most ambitious statist agenda in a half-century in the patois of limited government and rebellion; and, in my own country of birth, authorities that lock people up for speaking do so in the ostensible name of “respect.”

 

If you can’t beat ’em, confuse ’em.

 

Yesterday morning, Obamacare’s beleaguered partisans got in on the act, too. Responding to a CBO report that suggested the law would encourage more than 2 million people either to seek less work or to leave the labor market completely, progressives picked up their tricornered hats and their muskets, and started to shout incoherently about “freedom.” In a lovely illustration of the truism that progressives really haven’t the slightest clue what it is that conservatives believe, the Huffington Post’s Senior Congressional Reporter, Michael McAuliff, spoke for the cabal, suggesting ludicrously that,

There’s an irony in the GOP complaining that ACA lets people quit jobs. I mean, what’s wrong with freedom?

 

To answer a remarkably misguided rhetorical question, there is nothing at all “wrong with freedom.” As Patrick Henry rightly argued, above all other things “liberty ought to be the direct end” of government, for, after that, everything else is mere indulgence. But there is an awful lot “wrong” with using the word “freedom” where it does not apply.

 

After all, it is one thing for a person to choose not to work and to accept the natural consequences of that decision, but quite another indeed for a person to choose not to work because others are being forced to subsidize his well-being. One can reasonably attest that redistributing wealth to underwrite preferred social outcomes is “necessary” or “virtuous” or “kind” or “practical” — or even, more cynically, that it is the inexorable end product of a democratic system in which one man can vote himself the contents of another’s wallet. But one cannot claim that it makes either man “free” — at least not without twisting the word and the concept that it represents beyond all meaningful recognition.

 

More at the link:

 

 

Medicaid Enrollment Less than a Third of What the White House Claimed

 

Last month, the Obama administration said that 6.3 million Americans have been deemed eligible for Medicaid under Obamacare, but a new report from a health-care consulting firm shows that the enrollments attributable to the law are far short of what the White House has claimed. Avalere Health estimates that only 1.1 million to 1.8 million people nationwide signed up for Medicaid because of the Affordable Care Act between October and December, less than one-third of the enrollments for which the White House credited the law.

Edited February 6, 2014 by B-Man

[OCinBuffalo]

How about we have an experiment? I'm going to give you 2 quotes, and any of you tell us which one is more likely to be an election-winning argument today, not 7 years ago.

 

First this:

...and you probably don't believe that people should be chained to an employer to get food, clothing, shelter, education or a cell phone. We're near the point in the U.S. (or maybe we are there) where people can simply choose to work or not and if they choose not, those that do choose to work will fund their needs. That reality is totally un-American and counter to the principles of most Americans.

 

Oh, and it's a myth that people couldn't buy health insurance at a fair price without going through an employer before the ACA was passed. I've done it.

Then this:

There are industries where a completely free market produces the best results, health care is not one of them. Certain industries are prone to market failure and the government by means of power to coerce can actually improve efficiency. Basically Government regulation can be used as a policy to prevent market failureRegulatory constraints on monopoly sellers can contribute to a more efficient market place, requirements to provide adequate information can be used to protect citizen’s health and safety, and forcing factories to internalize costs from pollution can enhance social welfare.

 

Anyway bud, the individual health insurance market is prone to market failure because of adverse selection. That is individuals have a better idea of their health status than the companies, so insurance companies that offer better plans see sick patients flock to them. The basic positive forces of competition don't work here and as a result insurance company spend more and more time creating administrative process to weed out the sick. That's why you see medicare and medicaid outperform private insurance companies when it comes to administrative costs.

 

Like it or not health care is a system and government action can improve outcomes if done right. If left up to the private sector the the good will be underprovided.

 

If you had to win an election, and were confronted with these 2 positions, which one would you be more confident about going out and saying to people? Feel free to show your work as to which one is better, but, you don't have to.

 

 

Here ends the experiment.

 

See, the Juan's of the world really don't understand how truly F'ed they are on this issue. The CBO comes out with this report, and while on defense(let's be honest, this CBO report puts Ds on the defensive, all BS aside) the Ds start trying to play nuance too? Since 2006, the ENTIRE Democratic party has been running on bumper stickers, not nuance. Their current governing coalition is based on the dumbest/least informed = LIV = young single women, minorities, unskilled union people, handout recipients etc. The people who respond the best to nuance either didn't vote for them, or, did but are so small in # nationally(college professors, trial lawyers, urban IT people) that they don't matter, becaue they get cancelled out electorally with plenty of votes left over.

 

Live by the LIV, die by the LIV. Ask yourself: which argument above will the LIV understand, never mind agree with?

 

Once again, Obamacare "The Liberal Cleaver". That has nice ring to it. I may have to start doing gifs again.

[Delete This Account]

How about we have an experiment? I'm going to give you 2 quotes, and any of you tell us which one is more likely to be an election-winning argument today, not 7 years ago.

 

First this:

 

Then this:

 

 

If you had to win an election, and were confronted with these 2 positions, which one would you be more confident about going out and saying to people? Feel free to show your work as to which one is better, but, you don't have to.

 

 

Here ends the experiment.

 

See, the Juan's of the world really don't understand how truly F'ed they are on this issue. The CBO comes out with this report, and while on defense(let's be honest, this CBO report puts Ds on the defensive, all BS aside) the Ds start trying to play nuance too? Since 2006, the ENTIRE Democratic party has been running on bumper stickers, not nuance. Their current governing coalition is based on the dumbest/least informed = LIV = young single women, minorities, unskilled union people, handout recipients etc. The people who respond the best to nuance either didn't vote for them, or, did but are so small in # nationally(college professors, trial lawyers, urban IT people) that they don't matter, becaue they get cancelled out electorally with plenty of votes left over.

 

Live by the LIV, die by the LIV. Ask yourself: which argument above will the LIV understand, never mind agree with?

 

Once again, Obamacare "The Liberal Cleaver". That has nice ring to it. I may have to start doing gifs again.

 

amazing how one hand clapping fails to make a sound.

 

jw

 

The new face of the Democrat party:

 

 

really. that's what's considered a response in these parts. good one?

some might suggest that discussion is a lost art. yup.

 

juw

 

does anyone here have any idea formed on their own, or is this merely a parrot place for bill o'reilly pretenders?

[OCinBuffalo]

amazing how one hand clapping fails to make a sound.

 

jw

You're saying this at 3:51 am EST? Let's see what the rest of the day brings, shall we?

 

Look, I have to be up at this time due to work.

 

What the hell is your excuse?

Edited February 6, 2014 by OCinBuffalo

[birdog1960]

amazing how one hand clapping fails to make a sound.

 

jw

 

 

 

 

really. that's what's considered a response in these parts. good one?

some might suggest that discussion is a lost art. yup.

 

juw

 

does anyone here have any idea formed on their own, or is this merely a parrot place for bill o'reilly pretenders?

yes, but there's beauty in that. the right wing talk show dudes generally hang up on, never engage in the first place or plant a patsy to argue against. here you proxies for those propagandists that you can actually debate (well, sort of).

[OCinBuffalo]

yes, but there's beauty in that. the right wing talk show dudes generally hang up on, never engage in the first place or plant a patsy to argue against. here you proxies for those propagandists that you can actually debate (well, sort of).

Well, now it's 8:38 am, how about we see where the experiment is at 2pm?

 

And, I'm not hanging up on you, far from it: I've presented you with a choice. You have the free will to try and make the case that the Juan's argument is an election winner, and that keepthefaith's is not. Go ahead and try. I guarantee I will listen.

 

(I make no promises about laughing...at you, and who knows, perhaps with you? Maybe there's some bridog insight that I may have missed? It's entirely possible: remember my years of JA impersonation are now over. I'm free to be funny once again, and less pedantic...unless it's required. )

[GG]

There are industries where a completely free market produces the best results, health care is not one of them. Certain industries are prone to market failure and the government by means of power to coerce can actually improve efficiency. Basically Government regulation can be used as a policy to prevent market failureRegulatory constraints on monopoly sellers can contribute to a more efficient market place, requirements to provide adequate information can be used to protect citizen’s health and safety, and forcing factories to internalize costs from pollution can enhance social welfare.

 

This is all economics 101

 

Anyway bud, the individual health insurance market is prone to market failure because of adverse selection. That is individuals have a better idea of their health status than the companies, so insurance companies that offer better plans see sick patients flock to them. The basic positive forces of competition don't work here and as a result insurance company spend more and more time creating administrative process to weed out the sick. That's why you see medicare and medicaid outperform private insurance companies when it comes to administrative costs.

 

Like it or not health care is a system and government action can improve outcomes if done right. If left up to the private sector the the good will be underprovided.

 

Oh goodie, the administrative cost meme. Are you comparing those costs on the same basis, or are you just taking what the Medicare & Medicaid trustees say the administrative costs are based on their definition of accounting? There's also a huge difference between a highly regulated market, which healthcare today is, and a government run market, which is where healthcare is heading.

 

But, it's always a neat day here when Juan does his drive by's.

[OCinBuffalo]

Oh goodie, the administrative cost meme. Are you comparing those costs on the same basis, or are you just taking what the Medicare & Medicaid trustees say the administrative costs are based on their definition of accounting? There's also a huge difference between a highly regulated market, which healthcare today is, and a government run market, which is where healthcare is heading.

 

But, it's always a neat day here when Juan does his drive by's.

I suppose we an put GG down for "this is an election losing argument".

[birdog1960]

Well, now it's 8:38 am, how about we see where the experiment is at 2pm?

 

And, I'm not hanging up on you, far from it: I've presented you with a choice. You have the free will to try and make the case that the Juan's argument is an election winner, and that keepthefaith's is not. Go ahead and try. I guarantee I will listen.

 

(I make no promises about laughing...at you, and who knows, perhaps with you? Maybe there's some bridog insight that I may have missed? It's entirely possible: remember my years of JA impersonation are now over. I'm free to be funny once again, and less pedantic...unless it's required. )

oh goody! is this like a ppp showdown? where someone with polar opposite political viewpoints from me judges a political argument that i'm involved in?

 

 

and i'm still attempting to analyze the psychopathology involved in arguing under multiple aliases on an anonymous political opinion board. so far i've only concluded that it appears to be common but is definitely pathologic.

Edited February 6, 2014 by birdog1960

[OCinBuffalo]

oh goody! is this like a ppp showdown? where someone with polar opposite political viewpoints from me judges a political argument that i'm involved in?

I'm not judging you: I am giving you the opportunity to prove what you are saying is true. To any of us. Here you have a chance to convince us that Guzman's argument is a election winning argument, and, to do it objectively.

 

Objectively, that's the key word here: extricate yourself, and tell us which argument you think is a election winning argument. That's all this is. No mantra, just tell us which one you think is a winner, in this political enviornment, today.

 

 

Speaking of objectively, how about we hear from the CBO horse's mouth:

http://www.realclear...le_to_work.html

 

The last 24 hours of Dimocratic spin, has ranged from the slightly absurd, to the downright bizarre. In the end, the CBO director has come out and told us, objectively, what's what. There is no rational next step for Democrats here. Best to say nothing and pray for something bad to happen at the Olympics.

 

For Dimocrats: the next step is to attack Ryan(as if Ryan doesn't have more credibility on these issues in his pinky, than then entire left combined), and then attack the CBO director.

 

Waste of time. The man has told you: Obamacare disincentivizes work. You gain nothing by keeping this in the news, but, you're goint to anyway, because you can't admit you are wrong. Sheer stupidity. I look at RCP this morning, and what do I see? Dimocrats insisting on keeping this in the news...2 day later. If they had just shut up, a dry story like CBO ends yesterday. Meanwhile there's hardly anyone talking about this on the R side of things. It's almost like: they know the idiots are going to do their job for them, and keep this in the news.

 

Democrats know: continually being forced back onto Obamacare = lose in 2014. Dimocrats want to sit there and fight the losing battle.

 

Which one are you birdog?

Edited February 6, 2014 by OCinBuffalo

[IDBillzFan]

does anyone here have any idea formed on their own, or is this merely a parrot place for bill o'reilly pretenders?

 

And there you have it; a devout progressive criticizing people for lacking original thought...by parroting a far left meme that is bereft of original thought.

 

Absolutely precious.

Edited February 6, 2014 by LABillzFan

[3rdnlng]

yes, but there's beauty in that. the right wing talk show dudes generally hang up on, never engage in the first place or plant a patsy to argue against. here you proxies for those propagandists that you can actually debate (well, sort of).

 

I'd like to see where you get this schit from. Got a link?

[B-Man]

I'd like to see where you get this schit from. Got a link?

 

He just knows it to be true.............evryone says so..............lol

[birdog1960]

I'd like to see where you get this schit from. Got a link?

it's my opinion. isn't nearly everthing posted here opinion? even if it's an opinion originally generated and disseminated by the far right wing propaganda machine....