Who do you think it is?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Printable View
Who do you think it is?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
http://forum.gsplayers.com/member.php?360-BevanQuote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Also Galleazo before that account got banned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Paranoid much?
Im not masquerading as someone else and havent a clue who youre so obscurely referring to in your posts.
I just came back to the lands after a lengthy hiatus of over 7 years and dont remember ever interacting with you except in the past 3 months on this forum.
That's an old account, but....Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
...the timing is right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenwood
Given as we have someone who used also used Ravenwood (Not just Ravenswing) as an alias and masqueraded as a Republican, then left, it's less unlikely than you'd imagine. We have people who try to conceal their identity quite a lot. Of course you could really be an obsessive fan of Ann Coulter. It is possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenwood
Not the Ann Coulter talk again.
WOA! That was a fast response. Do you have a trigger set to the words Ann Coulter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
That's... a rather frightening position to take and still try to claim the moral high ground. Also I'm curious about your numbers. How many inmates who have received a life sentence have escaped to harm those who testified against them compared to those who have been wrongfully executed?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenwood
If it's satire it's terribly done.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
The contextualizing of liberals as all that is evil and untrustworthy in the world reads like a Democrat who's taken note of Ann Coulter and is using it to parody Republicans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I'm sure cwolff and I would get much more mileage out of him actually being as nutty as he sounds.
I assure you Im not masquerading as anything. As far as being a Republican goes, that should be pretty evident in my posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
When I picked this name out I was watching a rerun of the TV series on demand and didnt know someone had used it before.
I'll be happy to show you pictures tomorrow of me wearing a big head Obama mask, prison jumpsuit and handcuffs as I protest at the Ukrops 5k in Richmond Va.
Republican wise that'd actually be pretty edgy and entertaining. I'm sure they'd like it. Maybe Ken Cuccinelli actually plays GS. In which case, welcome former Attorney General! I didn't vote for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenwood
I'm just obsessively watching this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
Who's life do you value more? Your friends and families or a psychopaths?
If you continue to chose the latter then you shouldnt even attempt to talk to the rest of us about morals.
Most people on death row have extensive criminal and juvenile arrest records as well. Regardless of that, the system is set up with numerous appeals and stays to stop the very thing youre complaining about from happening in the first place.
Giving criminals like these moral equivalence to their victims is wrong and makes you and those like you, party to their heinous acts. In short, youre no better than they are.
Just one more reason why you should never trust a liberal.
End of story.
You don't like running?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenwood
I'm going to test it sometime. See if it's like the bat signal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Still waiting on those numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenwood
Just a little thought exercise. When your kid goes down for murder he/she didn't commit. Do you tell your child that's the price to be paid to keep your family safe?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenwood
Ravenwood doesn't like exercise, he's going to protest a short jog tomorrow.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Death to all FUN RUNS! LIBERTAD LIBERTADQuote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
I know bevan, it's not him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Be nice. He could be protesting Ukrops giving same sex partner benefits.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
That's good. If it was satire it'd be awfully clumsy.Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
Keep waiting.I'm not your gd secretary. If you want them you know how to find them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
I can't wait to see you at a town hall meeting next Presidential election. That'll play great on comedy central.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenwood
"Hundreds of thousands are at risk from people who aren't put to death immediately. Very few people are wrongfully executed comparatively so it's not a concern."Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenwood
"Source?"
"Go fuck yourself."
You can't make this up. :lol:
"Source?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
"My grandpappy,"
APA in text citation: (G. Fuckyourself, 2014)Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
Seriously though, even though I'm for the death penalty in certain situations, being on the theoretical same side of an issue with a loon like Ravenswood really makes me rethink my position at times.
But WB and I are in favor of the death penalty so everything is gravy again, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
Thanks for the compliment Taenath. Being called a loon by the likes of you is high praise indeed.
Attachment 6338
Maybe it's Jarvan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenwood
That the best you can do, is call me a dumb MFer in my reputation comments?
Dumb is being convinced by your own political party that paying a higher premium with a higher deductible is somehow a good thing.
Completely moronic is trying to force those same poor choices on the rest of us....or actually paying higher premiums and decutibles to sell out the rest of the country in the process
Even most traitors have enough sense to get paid well for their craven acts. Youre paying for the "privelege" and are too dumb to even realize it.
I may be dumb at times but one thing I will never be is a whining, pathetic, traitorous, morally bankrupt,deluded and confused, piece of liberal shit.
If it werent for humans circumventing natural selection centuries ago, California and the entire liberal party would be practically non-existent. You didnt survive to adulthood a few hundred years ago if you lacked common sense, intelligence and respect for the teaching of your elders.
Your idea of progress is devolution and anarchy.
Holy shit. Whining? Check. Deluded? Check. Confused? Check. Open minded? That would be a big no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenwood
Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Your open-mindedness doesnt make you superior. Quite the contrary. That combined with seeing indiscriminateness as a moral imperative is how idiotic liberals have gained the foothold they have in this country.
You have to stand for something or you'll fall for anything.....including Obamacare and the lies of your party.
Not having an opinion doesnt make you smarter than the rest of us.Its just makes you dumber and that much easier to fool and control.
Thats why idiots like you believe Obama and Reid when they say they misspoke or that you misunderstood them. You might be that stupid but the rest of us are assuredly not.
When someone says 'If you like your health insurance you can keep it" twenty or more times then retracts it, thats not a misunderstanding or failing on the part of the millions of people hearing the speaker.
Its a lie. And so is practically everything else coming out of the lips of Pelosi, Reid, Holder, Clinton and the Obama's.
That animosity youre feeling towards me right now is caused by cognitive dissonance as a result of having your own head so firmly planted up your own posterior that you dont know the truth from a lie when its right in front of your face.
Thats what happens when kids get trophies just for participating.
I don't think either of us are in favor of the Kim Jung Un style death penalty, however. Though I could be wrong!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
While I respect your authority on whining, delusion, confusion and closed mindedness, I disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Pretty sure no one has ever been more right. Qft.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenwood
I do always like to hear your opinion as to how other people are anarchists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
Wow, this guy is on a roll! Preach on!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenwood
Man. Some real anger and hatred in here. Blow off some steam, head down to that fun run I hear is happenig in Ukrops. Maybe run it? Endorphins and all...
Yeah, warriorbird has issues. The ignore list works pretty well as long as no one quotes him.Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
You're right. I honestly want to go now. It feels like the sort of thing that no one would protest. Only an hour drive!Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
With careful use of it I'm sure you could pretend that the whole world agrees with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
If he's really going to protest the same sex marriage thing, he's gonna be seriously disappointed with the end of Noah. Turns out god is just a big gay rainbow.
Who said we were protesting the run? Reading comprehension really isnt your strong point is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I said we were protesting AT the run. As in 10k people seeing the signs and protesters. Thats how real political activists do it for all of you armchair quarterbacks and internet political jockeys that are too fat to get up off the couch.
I understand your position better now Warriorbird. If you only live an hour away from Richmond that means youre more than likely in the employ of government in one fashion or another.
The parasites in Washington love Obama because theyre all getting fat off of his largess. Except its ordinary citizens who end up paying for all of that. Probably even our children and grandchildren.
How much money did it take to get you to sell the rest of us out? Just curious.
Half of my income comes from work with the family wine business/festival. The other half comes from the state government, not the federal. I don't teach for the money but because I want to help the state. I've volunteered for a number of campaigns. I tend to find most protest pointless. A good friend of mine got beat up by anarchists during the Seattle WTO protests and spent a fair bit of time in the hospital.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenwood
I'm curious about people who don't trust the government to be competent enough to run a website, develop a cogent health care system or nearly anything else but see no issue with giving it the right to kill citizens through its court system.
To borrow a phrase from Ravenwood, here's your answer in a coconut shell.Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
Quote:
Kimmel proposes a theory of aggrieved entitlement: a sense that the benefits to which white men long believed themselves entitled have been snatched from them. Kimmel locates the increase in anger with a growing social, political, and economic gender gap, twinned with an ideology of masculinity that makes America's white men feel empty and alone. Although they have been facing years of underemployment and wage stagnation, mainstream American discourse rarely discuss class issues. So when America's white men feel they've lived their lives the "right" way-worked hard-and still do not get the rewards to which they believe they are entitled, then they have to blame somebody else. Anybody else.
Completely agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
Typically, it's the liberal mindset that is all about entitlement, not the conservative. It's their base argument for everything. Everyone is entitled to (insert liberal cause paid for via other people's money here). But you knew that.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
This is a commonly held view by some though it's not applicable to the use of the word entitlement in the above paragraph. Try again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
Except they stop being citizens the moment they are convicted of molesting a child, raping someones wife, daughter or mother or when they kill someone.Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
The people who do those awful things made a conscious choice.Their victims didnt have one. Some of them will never have another choice again.
Except they don't stop being citizens until the day they themselves renounce it. They lose a few rights, sure, but they are still US Citizens. Some of them do their time and get out of jail, and after that what country do you think their passport is from?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenwood
Don't be so modest. We all know you're getting the Kim Jun Un haircut.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I would if I ever wanted to intimidate one of my Uncles. Hmm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
http://odorunara.files.wordpress.com...pe-octopus.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Ravenwood
You're missing the point on this particular side argument. Wayward's argument is not whether capital punishment is justified in any particular situation, but rather that if government is too inept to build a website (which they are, obviously), why would we trust them to correctly determine who is guilty and who isn't when there is a life on the line? At least, that's how I took his statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenwood
I do not aim to explain to you how liberals are not ideologues. I aim to explain how no one is, because all of us are humans. None of us are robots. Humans do not have core programming, they are arbitrary, capricious, rationalizing. Humans are made of meat, not logic. The sooner you internalize this truth, the sooner you will be able to get past your partisan bias. Everyone on both sides of every aisle embraces contradictory positions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenwood
You should look into it, it's a very interesting (if very depressing) story. The vast majority of wrongful capital convictions are on the basis of eyewitness testimony or confessions that turn out to be false. Why would someone confess to a capital offense? you might ask. Humans are made of meat, not truth. Sane, intelligent people will confess to something they don't do under interrogation, even if it means their death, because they'll honestly believe it.Quote:
A handful of somewhat innocent lives (they had to have done something in order to facilitate this mistaken identity and end up on death row in the first place)
And you would have us kill them.
Latrin, no offense but your logic is rather fuzzy, clearly people can be ideologues, in fact, I would submit that the person in the White House is a perfect example of one:Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
i·de·o·logue
ˈīdēəˌlôg,-ˌläg,ˈidēə-/Submit
noun
1.
an adherent of an ideology, esp. one who is uncompromising and dogmatic
He is the very epitome of uncompromising and dogmatic. Is anyone on here an ideologue, who can say for sure, but based upon comments some make I would say so and that goes for both sides of the coin.
Poor Barack. He just can't catch a break around here. Either he's a tyrant or a pussy. An ideologue or wishy washy. He talks too tough or not tough enough. You might think that these debates are between the right and left, but you'd be wrong. Can we get a little consistency?
He's a complex figure. I feel he's overreached in some instances and under-reached in others. It's even more complex for Republicans because they want to be able to not like his results no matter what.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Is it fair to say that most if not all of our Presidents are this way? Hell, I bet the Presidents ultimately have more in common with each other than they do with their party. You could probably draw comparisons between Bush and Obama that show a greater similarity than with Obama and the democrats, or Bush and the GOP during his terms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
That is incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
It all depends on the type of felony, if they are on probation or parole and a host of other factors. Even getting a passport is no guarantee you can get into a country.England is extremely strict about criminals entering their country.
In a lot of states you also lose your right to vote, to own a gun, to adopt,to receive professional licensing and to even live in public housing.
What ideology do you believe the President is an adherent of?Quote:
Originally Posted by kutter
First of all, your grasp of basic US law reminds me of Micheal J Fox with an etch-a-sketch, which is to say shaky at best and probably completely blank. Being convicted of a felony in no way strips a person of their citizenship.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenwood
Second, you missed the point of my post. Wrathbringer helped spell it out for you.
Third, how was the fun run??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenwood
You're 44 and still this stupid? Your daddy and granddaddy have failed you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenwood
Maybe he meant 44 to life in a federal penitentiary? No, that doesn't fit, he'd know more law from all the appeals he'd have filed.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Could be dog years.Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
Typically. It's why he's very average to me as a President. He's not the Great Satan or the Messiah. He's a human, like one of the ones that Latrin references.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
You do not lose citizenship from felonies. You lose rights, yes. You do not lose citizenship. Felons may not beable to vote, but they can still run for US Congress and President as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenwood
What? Did you think they stripped felons of citizenship and made the citizens of no nation?
lib·er·al·ism noun \ˈli-b(ə-)rə-ˌli-zəm\Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
: belief in the value of social and political change in order to achieve progress
The problem is that it is their definition of progress, not everyone's. I would not say that bigger government and more people on government subsidies is progress but he clearly would disagree.
I am curious exactly where your belief is that he compromised on anything significant?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
The entire time period of dissipating his mandate on healthcare for a Republican Party that acted like Lucy to his Charlie Brown. He'd constantly make changes and they'd just refuse to vote like they were always going to. Olympia Snowe owned him so hard it wasn't even funny. He acted like the Republicans would actually give way, ever, on anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by kutter
They were never going to give him a single success he didn't force on them. After that he took it personally. It wasn't actually personal but it gave him his second election. The cost is a mediocre healthcare plan and a Presidency nowhere near as significant as Clinton's. Clinton carefully turned the Republican Congress's desire to actually achieve something into Democratic Congressional gains. Obama has reduced Democratic power.
Nailing Osama gave Obama his second term.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
THANKS, OSAMA!!
Wait, what?
I wonder how many people would want to see that sex tape.Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
Another component. As was the Republican Party throwing Dubya under the bus on immigration.Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
Darn libruls messing up my Obamacare fuckup thread.
But the President does not categorically believe in change, campaign slogans notwithstanding. He has stayed the course on drone strikes, for instance, or you can google "ways Obama is the same as Bush" to find many people whose character is beyond reproach detailing lists from 5 to 100 items.Quote:
Originally Posted by kutter
He doesn't even categorically believe in bigger government, if he did he wouldn't have signed into law $1,000,000,000,000 in cuts, which I can only assume is true because it is published on the Internet. Whoever was really behind the cuts is irrelevant, the vote in the House was not enough to overcome a veto. That the bill was part of a larger compromise is irrelevant, an uncompromising person by definition does not compromise.
At least mine taught me basic respect for others. Do you talk to people irl like that or just on the internet where you cant get punched in the mouth?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Youre still obviously laboring under the delusion that youre smarter than everyone here. Youre not. My points are all valid.Technically you might still be considered a citizen but only in the barest sense of the word.Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
As far as the law goes ....I could care less about that. Lawyers and their interpretation of the law (mostly without ethics or common sense of any kind) are a huge part of whats wrong with this country to begin with.
Third we we got quite a few thumbs up from the runners and even quite a few glares from those in the Obamacare sign up van.
This is pretty funny, given your manifestos about "liberals". Is "basic respect for others" something that only other people are supposed to have?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenwood
Which point? The one where you claimed felons are stripped of citizenship? You're wrong about this and not because lawyers manipulated you into being wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenwood
You have made no other points outside of "OMG RAPE/MURDER/MOLESTATION PEOPLES R BAAAAD!!!111, which is just stating the obvious.
And you have still failed to address what I wrote.
Also, have a few of these: ' ' '
Seriously dude? You're going to try to take this path? :violin:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenwood
We got a tough guy in here!
So you made a statement that was wrong, then when called on it, you offer up this little gem of logic. You could care less about the law? When you say something like that I can't take you seriously because you are saying you reject what the majority of people have come to decide as fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenwood
Your next comment is that lawyers are a huge part of whats wrong with this country. There are two things about this statement I have to ask. Do you really think our country is doing poorly? It's not perfect but as of this post it's the most profitable and the most free. What else is so bad with our country?
Second, you group lawyers together as being a bad thing. If that were the case we'd most definitely be majorly fucked. But, not all lawyers are without ethics or common sense, and I would go so far as to say those would be a small minority of lawyers. There are plenty of lawyers out there who fight good fights for good people. Given your disdain for the law, your blase comment on lawyers and our country, you sound as though you are repeating things you've heard other people say and haven't bothered to really think about it yourself.
If Obama couldn't care less about the law, then why should we?
Probably the most ironic thing ever posted on this forum.Quote:
you are repeating things you've heard other people say and haven't bothered to really think about it yourself.
How does Obama care less about the law and how does anyone caring less about the law mean everyone should care less about the law?Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
If Obama or your friends jumped off a bridge would you jump too?
Hardly. The dude says, "lawyers are whats wrong with this country", like no one has ever said that before. Wow. Really original thought there. If I didn't know any better I'd think my grandpa was posting on the PC.Quote:
Probably the most ironic thing ever posted on this forum.
The reason I think people demonize me here is because my thoughts on things are outside the norm. You can read that as fairly original or at least non-reespousing some ancient mindless overused inaccurate cliche phrases.
As far as Democrats go I'd say it's par for the course to kiss Obama's ass no matter what he does so I"m not sure how you think your "thoughts are outside the norm."Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
There is another mindless inaccurate axiom espoused mainly by trolls. If someone agrees with something that someone else does not they are branded as "kissing someone/something's ass". Typically "kissing someone's ass" means being overly nice to someone, regardless on whether they deserve it or not, to get on their good side. I've never met Obama so I can't have done it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I voted for Obama and I am pleased with his record. No, I don't agree with everything, but I agree with a good amount of it.
So are you admitting that Obama couldn't care less about the law?Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swqfF...yer_detailpageQuote:
Originally Posted by Methais
No no, you can't dodge this one with a non-answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Are you admitting that Obama couldn't care less about the law? Yes or no will suffice.
Can't you answer my questions before you start asking me other questions?Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Is Back drunk again?Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
I always drunk when I'm post. I fixed the typo.
Let me make sure I got this right...I asked a question first, you responded with a question, I asked you to answer it again, you respond with a video, I call you out again, and then you demand I answer question first, as if I'm asking 39288 questions that you're trying so hard to answer but you just can't because I won't stop bombarding you with more questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Is that the angle you're going for?
But I'll play anyway, even though you still won't answer my question:
Do none of the 493849383 delays and changes to Obamacare via executive order come to mind, despite the fact that changing an existing law is supposed to be done through congress?Quote:
How does Obama care less about the law and how does anyone caring less about the law mean everyone should care less about the law?
Now you can nitpick my answer all you want, but just make sure you answer this before you hit the post button:
Are you admitting that Obama couldn't care less about the law?
And no, I will not ask your questions. You can ask your own questions. Let me get you some hot chocolate and a fresh set of warm pajamas.
Not at all. Not sure how you can possibly construe that. First, we are talking about the people who make and enforce laws. The ACA is a new law with many provisions. Do you expect Congress and the President to pass a law then say "thats it! finished! done! no take backsies!"? Of course not. Some parts of it will need to be tweaked to make it work properly. Our system of laws is not concrete. Rather, it is fluid, and changing as we deem it need to be changed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
One good example is how homosexual anal sex was against the law in some places a long time ago. In this day and age people realized that was dumb and repealed it which I'm sure you were quite happy about.
This is fucking Hilarious, since when you are asked a question you don't like, you just ask a question, deflect, or ignore it. (See my sig).Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
What Back is saying is... we should Repeal ACA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
other then that, he says a President can alter a law any way he sees fit as long as the original laws intent is not altered.
Can't wait for him to say that when a Republican does what he wants to ACA, or to another law.
Brilliant satire of the entire tragedy.Quote:
(Receptionist) Hello, Welcome to ObamaGolf. My name is Trina. How can I help you?
(Customer) Hello, I received an email from Golfsmith stating that my Pro V1 order has been canceled and I should go to your exchange to reorder it. I tried your web site, but it seems like it is not working. So I am calling the 800 number.
(Receptionist) Yes, I am sorry about the web site. It should be fixed by the end of 2014. But I can help you.
(Customer) Thanks, I ordered some Pro V1 balls.
(Receptionist) Sir, Pro V1's do not meet our minimum standards, I will be happy to provide you with a choice of Pinnacle, TopFlite, or Callaway Blue.
(Customer) But I have played Pro V1 for years.
(Receptionist) The government has determined that Pro V1s are no longer acceptable, so we have instructed Titleist to stop makiing them. TopFlites are better, sir, I am sure you will love them.
(Customer) But I like the Pro V1. Why are TopFlites better?
(Receptionist) That is all spelled out in the 2700 page "Affordable Golf Ball Act" passed by Congress.
(Customer) Well, how much are these TopFlites?
(Receptionist) It depends sir, do you want our Bronze, Silver, Gold or Platinum package?
(Customer) What's the difference?
(Receptionist) 12, 24, 36 or 48 balls.
(Customer) The Silver package may be okay; how much is it?
(Receptionist) It depends, sir; what is your monthly income?
(Customer) What does that have to do with anything?
(Receptionist) I need that to determine your government Golf Ball subsidy; then I can determine how much your out-of-pocket cost will be. But if your income is below the poverty level, you might qualify for a subsidy. In that case, I can refer you to our BallAid department.
(Customer) BallAid?
(Receptionist) Yes, golf balls are a right, everyone has a right to golf balls. So, if you can't afford them, then the government will supply them free of charge.
(Customer) Who said they were a right?
(Receptionist) Congress passed it, the President signed it and the Supreme Court found it Constitutional.
(Customer) Whoa.....I don't remember seeing anything in the Constitution regarding golf balls as a right.
(Receptionist) There's no explicit mention of golf balls in the Constitution, but President Obama is a former constitutional scholar and he believes it would have been included if the Constitutional had not been drafted by a bunch of slave-owning white men. The Democrats in the Congress and the Supreme Court agree with the President that golf balls are now a right guaranteed by the Constitution.
(Customer) I don't believe this...
(Receptionist) It's the law of the land sir. Now, we anticipated most people would go for the Silver Package, so what is you monthly income sir?
(Customer) Forget it, I think I will forgo the balls this year.
(Receptionist) In that case, sir, I will still need your monthly income.
(Customer) Why?
(Receptionist) To determine what your 'non-participation' cost would be.
(Customer) WHAT? You can't charge me for NOT buying golf balls.
(Receptionist) It's the law of the land, sir, approved by the Supreme Court. It's $49.50 or 1% of your monthly income...
(Customer) (interrupting) This is ridiculous, I'll pay the $49.50.
(Receptionist) Sir, it is the $49.50 or 1% of your monthly income, whichever is greater.
(Customer) ARE YOU KIDDING ME? What a ripoff!
(Receptionist) Actually sir, it is a good deal. Next year it will be 2%.
(Customer) Look, I'm going to call my Congressman to find out what's going on here. This is ridiculous. I'm not going to pay it.
(Receptionist) Sorry to hear that sir, that's why I had the NSA track this call and obtain the make and model of the cell phone you are using.
(Customer) Why does the NSA need to know what kind of CELL PHONE I AM USING?
(Receptionist) So they get your GPS coordinates, sir (Door Bell rings followed immediately by a loud knock on the door)
(Receptionist) That would be the IRS, sir. Thanks for calling ObamaGolf, have a nice day.
More good news on the health insurance front.
Quote:
As the law's initial enrollment period closes, at least 9.5 million previously uninsured people have gained coverage. Some have done so through marketplaces created by the law, some through other private insurance and others through Medicaid, which has expanded under the law in about half the states.
The tally draws from a review of state and federal enrollment reports, surveys and interviews with insurance executives and government officials nationwide.
...
Precise figures on national health coverage will not be available for months. But available data indicate:
• At least 6 million people have signed up for health coverage on the new marketplaces, about one-third of whom were previously uninsured.
• A February survey by consulting firm McKinsey & Co. found 27% of new enrollees were previously uninsured, but newer survey data from the nonprofit Rand Corp. and reports from marketplace officials in several states suggest that share increased in March.
• At least 4.5 million previously uninsured adults have signed up for state Medicaid programs, according to Rand's unpublished survey data, which were shared with The Times. That tracks with estimates from Avalere Health, a consulting firm that is closely following the law's implementation.
• An additional 3 million young adults have gained coverage in recent years through a provision of the law that enables dependent children to remain on their parents' health plans until they turn 26, according to national health insurance surveys from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
• About 9 million people have bought health plans directly from insurers, instead of using the marketplaces, Rand found. The vast majority of these people were previously insured.
• Fewer than a million people who had health plans in 2013 are now uninsured because their plans were canceled for not meeting new standards set by the law, the Rand survey indicates.
Republican critics of the law have suggested that the cancellations last fall have led to a net reduction in coverage. That is not supported by survey data or insurance companies, many of which report they have retained the vast majority of their 2013 customers by renewing old policies, which is permitted in about half the states, or by moving customers to new plans. "We are talking about a very small fraction of the country" who lost coverage, said Katherine Carman, a Rand economist who is overseeing the survey.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...#ixzz2xYL9uvzR
This is a fuckup.
Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration's health care website has fallen out of service for nearly four hours on deadline day for new sign-ups.
Visitors to HealthCare.gov on Monday morning saw messages that the site was down for maintenance, apparently under stress from the number of users accessing the site.
So the 6 million figure being tossed about everywhere is actually only 2 ... and is further reduced to like 1 - 1.5 million due to cancellations.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Here's the 6 million figure again. And it's 6 million. It may be more than 6 actually. Not sure from where you confusion stems but if I had to guess I'd guess that you are mixing and matching different goals of the program to have something to troll about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
• At least 6 million people have signed up for health coverage on the new marketplaces, about one-third of whom were previously uninsured.
Sounds pretty clear to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
cwolff just cannot read, only sees what he/she wants to see
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/i...nks-obamacare/
Apparently our 1Q14 GDP figure may be overstated due to Obamacare, as...
FUZZY MATH !!!Quote:
Personal income rose 0.3 percent in February, the Bureau of Economic Analysis said Friday. Consumer spending rose 0.3 percent too (0.2 percent after adjusting for inflation). That’s fairly healthy growth, especially given a harsh winter that dinged other economic indicators.
But there may be a little less to the gains than meets the eye. President Obama’s signature health law, the Affordable Care Act, accounted for nearly a quarter of the increase in income and nearly two thirds of the increase in spending. (The BEA has a helpful FAQ about how the health law affects its numbers.)
Here’s what’s going on: The government’s definition of income includes not just salaries and other cash payments but also non-cash benefits such as employer-paid health insurance premiums and government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. The health law has a particularly big impact on that last category because it made millions more people eligible for Medicaid. As a result, Medicaid payments increased $11.4 billion in February, representing 24 percent of the total increase in income. In January, Medicaid benefits represented an even bigger 47 percent of the increase in income.
The story is similar on the spending side. When people think about consumer spending, they tend to think about people buying groceries, shopping online or getting a haircut. But government economists use a broader definition that counts health care spending even when the patients themselves aren’t the ones writing the checks. Since the Affordable Care Act has extended health insurance to millions of people who didn’t have it before, health spending is likely to rise, at least in the short-term. (In the long-term, the law’s backers hope it will help bring down spending by making the medical system more efficient, but that effect, if it occurs, will be seen over years, not months.)
Government economists estimate the health law boosted medical spending by $13 billion in February, accounting for 64 percent of the total inflation-adjusted increase in consumer spending for the month. In January, consumer spending actually would have fallen if it weren’t for the boost from the Affordable Care Act.
(so if the 1Q14 ends up being barely positive, we will know that it actually shrunk, outside of the Obamacare 'activity')
You two are assuming that the initial enrollment goals were only for people who were uninsured and that's not where that number comes from. You're combining two different goals into one. 1 goal = get uninsured people insured; another goal = 7 million enrollees.
I'm seeing multiple sources report 9.5 million people are now insured through the ACA myself included. Thats a lot of people.
What's the percentage of those who actually just got pushed into medicare but are being counted? This thing is still an unmitigated disaster.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
That is quite possibly the stupidest goal of any goal ever created in the history of mankind and the history of any intelligent or even semi intelligent life form in the entire universe. I'm not even resorting to hyperbole!Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Seriously. "Hey let's pass a healthcare law to get these uninsured people insured!"
"Brilliant! But hey let's make a goal to just get ANYONE enrolled in healthcare under this new law, even people who already had health insurance or people who lost their insurance due to this law then were forced to use our website to get health insurance!"
"YES! YES! DO IT! DO IT!"
And the sheeple tout around this goal like good little lambs. Or sheep. Lamb sheep.
If insuring 9.5 million Americans with affordable healthcare is a disaster to you what would a tremendous success be?Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay
cwolff even admitted that more than half of those people already had insurance. You two really need to discuss your talking points before posting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
It's becoming painfully obvious that you don't actually know what you're talking about. In that world I can understand your outrage. I think if you took some time to understand the whole thing you'd find that your hyperbole is unwarranted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Ninja, 4.5 million previously uninsured are on state medicaid. I don't know if they were pushed there like you say, but they are on medicaid now. 6+ million enrolled through the exchanges of which 1/3 were previously uninsured. Less than 1 million are uninsured because they're old policy was cancelled and they didn't replace it. Overall the share of adults up to age 65 without insurance has declined from 20.9% last fall to 16.6%.
9.5 is the number of previously uninsured that are now covered. Just read TG. Fucking read and digest the numbers. Then you can bitch and moan but do it from an educated position.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Where is this source of 9.5 million?
I saw 9 referenced...
But they (generally) were not uninsured.Quote:
• About 9 million people have bought health plans directly from insurers, instead of using the marketplaces, Rand found. The vast majority of these people were previously insured.
If 9.5 million uninsured are now insured ... why is that # not posted all over the place, vs trying to trump up a 6 million figure that is actually 1 - 1.5? (1/3 of 6 minus the 0.5 - 1 that lost coverage)
The link is in the post. Go read it. You keep trying to pick a fight over this, just read the god damn article(s), digest the information then craft a response.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...,5472960.story
At least 4.5 million previously uninsured adults have signed up for state Medicaid programs
An additional 3 million young adults have gained coverage in recent years through a provision of the law that enables dependent children to remain on their parents' health plans until they turn 26
Fewer than a million people who had health plans in 2013 are now uninsured because their plans were canceled for not meeting new standards set by the law
So...9.5 million supposedly previously uninsured people gained healthcare coverage since the Obamacare roll out, 4.5 million of which received Medicaid, 3 million of which stayed on their parent's plans, if we minus the 1 million who lost coverage due to Obamacare we're at 1 million new adults paying for their own healthcare plans since this law was passed, most of whom I'm willing to bet are elderly or very sick people.
Yup, this law sure is gonna bring down them costs! It's like you guys aren't even trying to understand the supposed purpose of this law.
Oh yeah I almost forgot...no one knows how many of these people are actually paying their premiums either.
There is nothing to digest. It's the LA Times. It might as well be a newspaper in Russia based on the slewwy slanty bullshit they put up every day. That's like me referencing Fox News to counter your posts. I know well enough not to do it because it has zero credibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
I wonder; does this 9.5 million figure include people who are now on Medicare that weren't before? I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if it does.
Just saw your new avatar, nltw. That's a nice shot of Uncle Sam. You got his good side.
What's not to understand? Only you believe the ACA is designed to cure all our health care issues in it's first year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Then go to the source material like Kinsey and Co. surveys and the Rand corporation. The LA times isn't making this shit up, they're just reporting on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay
I saw the shoulder patch and laughed. "ACA Enforcement"Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
What's not to understand? WHAT'S NOT TO UNDERSTAND?!Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Were we not told that this law would lower healthcare costs because a lot of young and health people would be forced to pay into the system and thus lower healthcare costs for everyone?
How does that work when half of the people who have gained health insurance so far are receiving Medicaid? How does that work when a million people have already lost their insurance? How does that work when 3 million people are just being put back on their parent's plan?
What happened to your "Read the numbers! READ THEM! Then come back and post." And here I am after reading the numbers and making a counter argument and all you got is "Dude, no."
!!!
You might want to check this video out.. You just got shut down at 57 seconds into the video.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
It's called the AFFORDABLE Care Act for a reason. BECAUSE IT'S AFFORDABLE.
Fucking racist mother fucker.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azZS__X6r84
If you look at the title of a bill in Congress, you can almost guarantee that the bill is going to do exactly the opposite of what the title says. -Ron PaulQuote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
I get that you're ranting about something but I wonder what it really is? All the features that you're harping on are bi-partisan. I think that what you're trying to say is that in your gut you feel that it'll raise health care costs. Is that right? You just don't believe that it will end up working and that we'll all have to pay more for it without getting the desired results? Is that a clear understanding of your position?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Wow what a dumb bitch. Why do the people of California keep voting for this waste of skin?Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
"It's called affordable for a reason." Oh okay. So if they just pass a bill called "Eliminate unemployment problem" then I guess that means it'll eliminate the unemployment problem.
Holy shit! Why has no one ever though of this before? Maybe I should run for Congress.
!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Since that's what I've been saying since Obamacare was passed yes, that's a very reasonable take on my position.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Good video. Thanks for posting that. I really liked her quote of Obama "change is hard". That sums up the heartburn you all are feeling about this. It's a big change and conservatives struggle with that. Oveall, that's probably good for the yin/yang of things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
See I've been listening. IMO it's too soon to answer those questions. We may even have an increase in rates offered on the exchange next year, maybe the year after too. The ACA is going to take time. The good news here is that it's proof positive that your President is not in fact a socialist dictator. If he were he'd just force everyone that doesn't have the right coverage into the exchange and back that up with confiscations, jail terms and general dictatorish hassles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Your position involves complaining that ACA isn't liberal enough while a member of a party that would've never supported a better version.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Yea, we don't like change... that is the reason that we have problems with the ACA.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Well, that and we're obviously all racists and sexist xenophones.
You nailed it!
Gee I'm sure the people already struggling are going to love hearing this. So when can we expect Obamacare to finally do what it was supposed to do and stop doing the opposite of what it's supposed to do? 5 years? 10 years? Maybe our grandchildren will see the benefit of Obamacare.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
True. It is comforting to know he's just an incompetent boob and not a socialist dictator.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Not this argument again. "My party" didn't support THIS version so what's the difference?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
It makes all your complaints disingenuous at best.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Nuh uh!Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
It's already working for a lot of people. If you can't accept that then you've got nothing to say. It's ok if you think that it's not good in general but you've got to admit that for some people it's been a good thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
con·serv·a·tiveQuote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
kənˈsərvətiv/Submit
adjective
1.
holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.
noun
1.
a person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in relation to politics.
ya, I guess I did nail it.
You just got finished saying it might already raise premiums and might raise premiums for the next couple of years. So who is this working for?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
It's kind of pointless to say Obamacare is "working" for some people while recognizing that things are going to get worse for a lot of other people.
You're assuming it's going to get worse for A LOT of people and only work for SOME people. Do you have any numbers to support this? How are you defining getting worse? Like the people who only had catastrophic coverage; is it worse for them if they buy greater coverage for more money? Is it better? Is it a break-even?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Sure. 9.5 supposedly previously uninsured people are now insured (half of whom are so poor they are now on Medicaid), meanwhile tens of millions of people who already had healthcare will most likely see their premiums go up.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Healthcare costs not going down.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Don't you think they only had catastrophic coverage for a reason? How are you defining "better"? They had "worse" coverage but are now forced to buy "better" coverage and pay more?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
http://i.imgur.com/94PvO.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
This is a weird criticism. The inclusion of healthcare spending in consumer spending was not a ploy invented for this quarter. It has been common practice since at least 1959.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
I can't remember when, but I remember posting apprehension about R-teamers playing the race card card. Boy was I ever right. Also, xenophone is a much better word than multilingual, I hope it catches on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Black people didn't have it too great in 1965, 1966, 1967... but I doubt you'd find many who would decry the Civil Rights Act of 1964 today. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I am curious about something:
All the commercials aimed at the below 35 crowd, say they are getting health insurance for 28 to the highest of 47 a month;this is what I have seen on TV. One of the guys in the commercial was a very fit guy playing basketball saying it was his first time getting health insurance. I think it's awesome he is getting health insurance but at 28.00 a month how much is he offsetting the insurance cost of the old and pre existing maladies that have to be paid for? It looks like the group that is supposed to support the rest of the group is getting huge subsidies which wipes out the benefit them being in the pool.
I would also like to know how much of OUR tax dollars are paying for this media blitz.
~Zz
Apples and oranges. Apples and oranges.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
It's good to get the poor insured especially if the cost is defrayed across 10s of millions of people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
That sounds like any social safety net program. We'll have to see how this affects overall health care costs. It could take years to know and it's a complex system and the end results are not clear. I agree that if ACA ends up just costing a shit ton of money and not lowering health care costs or getting people insured then it will be a real problem.
People wouldn't have car insurance if we let them. Many still don't. There can be a debate about how much personal responsibility each citizen can have in these areas and I'm sure it will continue to be debated. Right now, catastrophic coverage only is not permissible. Maybe it will be in the future.
So you're assuming costs will only go up for the rich? You're also assuming the only increased costs will be the costs of insuring more people?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
I love watching pro Obamacare talking points evolve over the years. I remember when Obamacare was first being discussed. "Dude! Our healthcare, like, sucks because we have like, the worst life expectancy rate of any developed country. Obamacare will fix this!"Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Now that Obamacare is finally here and costs are going up now we're seeing "Well you see the system is very complex and it might take years, perhaps decades to understand it all."
I'm making no assumptions about the rich. I mentioned defrayed costs, you assumed I was making a point about rich people. Not sure why because it's just not there. Our health care system definitely needs work. It's a lot like our legal system. The more money a person has the better it works.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
In CA, super low and zero income people are put on MediCal. They're aren't allowed to sign up for a subsidized ACA approved health plan through a private insurance company. I find this hilarious because those numbers are counted for Obamacare but they could have signed up for MediCal anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
What's the difference between MediCal and an "ACA approved Health Plan through a private company"?Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay
Isn't MediCal just the one that California picked that fits the latter's description?
Medicaid was expanded under the ACA. Medical is California's medicaid. It sounds like you still don't actually know what the ACA is, what it does etc... What you find hilarious is exactly how it's supposed to work. The people with very low income were never supposed to be part of the exchanges which are are just a place for those who are not insured through work to buy private plans.Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay
Quote:
Medi-Cal, the Medicaid program in California, provides health coverage to people with low-income and asset levels who meet certain eligibility requirements.
You said it's good to get poor covered if the costs are "defrayed over tens of millions of people." Is it really good to get the "poor" covered if it means making life worse for other poor people? That makes no sense. You were making more sense when it seemed like you were thinking costs would only go up for rich people.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
MediCal existed long before the ACA. And you could sign up for it before the ACA. The fact that the ACA website refers people to MediCal when they have low to zero income is a silly number to give to the ACA. And what's funny that is if you are below $10k annual income, You have no choice. You get MediCal through the ACA. You can't sign up for anything else. I know. They forced my 4 month old Daughter into MediCal because she has no income. There are no options to even add her to the other plans because she can't find work at her age.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whirlin
What Cat Boy is saying is... Bush's "torture" program was legal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashliana
Sounds like MediCal would be the same bucket as MassHealth.Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay
If they're new enrollments in MediCal, I can see how that could be a result of the ACA marketing for individuals to obtain health insurance, and utilizing the national website (when it's up) to get to the MediCal website. But, I agree that it's shady and definitely a stretch as far as statistics go, and should be in it's own separate reporting caveat.
ACA allows children to be kept on their parents' insurance up to age 28. Depends if you claim them as a dependent on your tax return. I assume at age 4, they're still your dependent, and don't really need their own work. But, if you're not claiming them as a dependent, I guess they would qualify for MediCal.
As the law's initial enrollment period closes, at least 9.5 million previously uninsured people have gained coverage. Some have done so through marketplaces created by the law, some through other private insurance and others through Medicaid, which has expanded under the law in about half the states.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
This is such a lie it isn't even funny.
That's just my point though, I wasn't allowed to add her to the Covered CA plan at all. Because she had no income. She was registered as my dependent but because she had zero income, they pushed her off the Sharp plan and into MediCal. I went to a broker to see if I was doing something wrong, and apparently, this is a thing. An unstoppable thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whirlin
The wonders of "fuzzy math" !Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay
I know it wasn't a goal.... but....Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
"Jobs Created... OR ...saved"
I think you're just arguing for the sake of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Maybe MediCal covers children, regardless of income? I'd point to more website failures, but if a broker confirmed, I'm as stumped as you are.Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay
Sounds like a blessing to me, free childrens' health insurance? I say take it and never look back! Probably just saved you a couple hundred in premiums! Just save those communications in case the state comes back or something to cover your ass.
I think you're not making sense for the sake of defending Obamacare at all costs.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Let's look at the merits of your arguments one at a time.
Getting poor people covered. -- This is a good thing.
Increasing healthcare costs for poor people (which you have admitted will most likely happen.) -- This is a bad thing.
They canceled each other out. Case closed. Obamacare sucks. Let's move on.
If that makes you feel better then by all means, move on. Of course it's wrong but that's par for the course around here. I said that costs for insurance through the exchanges could go up. We don't know. The actuaries are working that out now that enrollment has ended.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
The exchanges aren't for poor people or rich people or middle class people; they're just for people. Some people, the poor, can get insured through medicaid and won't be on the exchange.
I wonder if you would feel the same way about it if the "change" was social reforms. Fixing medicare and SS.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
No.. then you would likely say it's evil, racist, -insert other typical dem rhetoric-.
Maybe we should do some hard change and fix those problems, THEN work on the problem of healthcare... nope.. make a NEW entitlement instead.
Brilliant.
Okay let's assume they do. That means Obamacare is a failure, right? Glad we're on the same page now :DQuote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
You're the one who brought up financial status here. Don't be all offended now.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Mostly, i was just pissed because her pediatrician was the shit and doesn't accept MediCal so I had to find a new one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whirlin
What the fuck are you talking about?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Sharp is employer based insurance right? Why can't your daughter be on your plan?Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
In my opinion, you are completely wrong. This doesn't affect the rich at all, they can pay for the healthcare they want. This specifically affects the middle and poor. The poor can get subsidized health insurance and the middle class gets to pay for it.
~Zz
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
It's not employer based insurance. It's the plan I chose through the ACA/CoveredCA that was comparable enough in co-pays and service to what was previously an employer health plan (That jumped from 487 to 1011 a month concurrently with the ACA becoming law). Except for the $1500 Deductible it's now $7500. So I got a $166 a month healthcare plan now through the ACA for Sharp that doesn't allow for my lazy, unemployed 4 month old daughter to be covered by it. Oh and almost all of the co-pays are double what they were with my previous employer based plan that covered everyone before. And my employer was offsetting the previous $487 a month by $300, so the family plan which included dental and vision was $187 a month before the ACA. Now there is no $300 a month to help me and through work it is $1011 for the plan I had before so I was forced in Covered CA which is cheaper monthly by $21 but it's only able to cover me because I am the only one in the household with an income. The 4 month old is still on MediCal and there is no way around it. I know, I checked and used my broker to help me. This is the new normal.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Tell your daughter to get a job!
Did I write that the rich are going to have to pay the freight because I'm reading the post you quoted from me and I don't see it.Quote:
Originally Posted by zzentar
And just wait till those 9.5 million more Americans find out that they also can't go to decent DR's because good Dr's generally don't wana deal with the shit the Government does. My Sister's pediatrician told her that out of her two practices (she has a separate one for medicaid for tax purposes) she would have to work 80 hours a day 7 days a week to break even on the medicaid one. The Government reimburses her less per patient then she pays her staff.Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay
(The above evidence will be dismissed by WB, Back, Cwolff and likely Latrine. Then WB will post something opposite and say his is valid. This is standard procedure, do not be alarmed.)
Why pay for a kid to be insured when the Dems want to insure them for free!!! (except then EVERYONE pays for it)Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay
So it's an exchange plan that doesn't allow for dependents? Something sounds off. Is it because of some sort of means testing or something? Did your employer drop insurance coverage or did you lose/change jobs?Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay
Did you read what you quoted? :/Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Nope. Nothing on my end changed. The ACA passing meant more out of cost to my employer and we're a non-profit so it's not like we have a whole lot of money to begin with. So they had to lose our employer provided subsidy and then our Healthnet provider for the company brought their Family Plan costs up from $487 to $1011 which forced almost the entire company onto the ACA. And guess what? Almost every single person with kids is either paying through the nose for their kids to be on their private plans or the kids are on MediCal, which sucks.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Ya I read it. He previously had insurance through an employer. Doesn't now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
In the meantime, ACA passed because the # of poor voters >> the # of middle class voters. It was strictly a political gambit for votes, and not something done with the sustainability of the U.S. economy in mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by zzentar
Well Ninjas they set a goal for Obamacare to get X number of people enrolled through the website so they had to force people out of their employer plan to meet this goal.
Because his premiums more than doubled because of Obamacare.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Ya that does suck. I'm sorry to hear it.Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay
It's all about who you quote.
On Thursday, the Obama administration announced that enrollment had reached six million. Using McKinsey's findings of 14 percent gaining new coverage, only 900,000 previously uninsured individuals will have acquired insurance as a result of the exchanges.
So, there remain nearly 35 million uninsured citizens. No additional enrollment in Obamacare for 2014 was scheduled after March 31, though the administration extended the deadline last week. The penalty for uninsured individuals has been delayed until 2016, reducing the motivation for additional sign-ups. The employer mandate has also been moved until 2016.
Given this analysis we reasonably can conclude:
The first four years of Obamacare have led to solving about 10 percent of the problem of uninsured citizens.
http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion...LXAqmk5CKTe.99
And it's not like I make a whole lot of money. But I was above 50% of the Area Median Income by about 1500 bucks annually. I clearly am not rich but I am not what I could consider poor either, but that's mostly because unlike most of America, I have some financial discipline and live within my means. I get my measily 10% disability from the VA and my GI Bill now, which helps a whole fucking lot, but I earned that shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
And this....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SluBPO4SCBw
We'll see how this ends up. Is that link to an Op-ed? One thing I noticed is that he's using numbers from 2/1 from the Kinsey survey. They may be accurate through the entire enrollment period they may not.Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay
• A February survey by consulting firm McKinsey & Co. found 27% of new enrollees were previously uninsured, but newer survey data from the nonprofit Rand Corp. and reports from marketplace officials in several states suggest that share increased in March.
Given this analysis we reasonably can conclude:
The first four years of Obamacare have led to solving about 10 percent of the problem of uninsured citizens.
No one has answered, who pays for this health insurance, can't be the gov't the gov't can't pay for anything. The gov't has no income, it just spends our tax dollars. So I have to assume, We are paying for the subsidies to Obamacare. I don't have a dictionary handy, can someone tell me the definition of socialism?
~Zz
so·cial·ismQuote:
Originally Posted by zzentar
ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/Submit
noun
1.
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Why would you say I'd dismiss it? Do I post things like "This is such a lie it isn't even funny."?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
That's what I am saying dude. It depends on who you quote. A perfect example is how the LA Times initially reported on Senator Leland Yee when he got busted for Arms Trafficking. The initial articles used the word, "Democrat," zero times. After a week of being called out on that, they changed them to reflect political party affiliation. And this isn't the first time they've avoided helping burn the party they obviously support. It's WHO you quote.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
They set out a goal of 7 million.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
They have said 6 million have signed up.
Boom, goal met. Don't worry about the math.. this is the same entity as the IRS so you can trust them.
My suggestion is to trust them.
Or else.
Sure. You've got to be a critical thinker. I'm reluctant to give that philly.com article the same weight as a non opinion article because the author is using that page space to advance his ideas for better health care. He's not reporting and the data he used to draw conclusions is apparently out of date.Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay
He has good ideas though and I'm all for continuing to work on ACA to make it better. They did it with Romneycare and that's been a success. Of course, they had some cooperation so politically everyone was invested in making a go of it. ACA doesn't enjoy that kind of support.
This is a pretty interesting idea from that article. I wonder if this could work.
Quote:
Establish a date certain by which the health-care industry will transform from a fee-for-service payment system to a per member, per month payment. Because we financially incentivize volume, we perform more than twice as many MRI exams and knee-replacement surgeries per person than the average of the next 10 industrialized countries.
LOL, how long has Romneycare been a word? I am guessing about as long as they have been running from Obamacare??Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Ya I think its the dem response to the pejorative obamacare.Quote:
Originally Posted by zzentar
Really, Obama loved it and embraced the term, 'Obamacare', in the beginning. I am not sure when it became a term of contempt. Oh wait, sorry, you are using your thesaurus so that you look intellectual, contempt=pejorative.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
All I know is we need to keep this subject on the front burner for another 7 months.
Obamacare really is a huge success (or will be come November)...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XAoQoQMROM#t=40
She is utterly useless and I can't believe she still has a job.
Are you kidding? The postman that got caught throwing mail in dumpsters because the weather was bad didn't get fired, why should she? You can't fire gov't employees, the best you can do is promote them to the point that they can't interfere with normal operations.
I fixed that lie for you. If you look at the numbers in your original post they dont even add up. Is it 6 million or is it 9.5 million or whatever arbitrary number you liberals think looks good for the day?Quote:
As the law's initial enrollment period closes, at least 9.5 million previously uninsured people EDIT 7 million people who were lied to and then kicked off their insurance have regained inferior coverage. Some have done so through marketplaces created by the law, some through other private insurance and others through Medicaid, which has expanded under the law in about half the states.
The tally draws from a review of state and federal enrollment reports, surveys and interviews with insurance executives and government officials nationwide.
...
Precise figures on national health coverage will not be available for months. But available data indicate:
• At least 6 million people have signed up for health coverage on the new marketplaces, about one-third of whom were previously uninsured.
.
Enrollment numbers mean NOTHING when you have to enroll ie register on the website to even get a quote. The only numbers that matter are the number of people who have actually paid for their premiums at the 1, 3 and 6 month marks. That Democrats cant or wont release these figures should tell you something.
Who wants to bet me that Kranar can tell the hits on PC and can also tell you how many posted something?
~Zz