American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=PeterSideburn;437897]I love it when liberals call rational people delusional and then blame the malady on their own delusional belief that not admiring King Obama has something to do with Race. How racist is it that you assume everyone who doesn't like this present must be a racist. Not even mentioning the fact that Obama shares far more in common with the narrative liberals ascribe to the elite class of evildoers etc. Obama's fiscal policies have held back the economy on all fronts and are driving us into the ground. His health care lunacy alone will be untenable let alone all of his other brilliant non-capitalist ideas. In fact, Jackson is dead on correct in his drawing parallels between the political leadership of Argentina and the US. How can you blame Bush for the housing mess when it was he and numerous Republican legislators who desperately tried to point out to the Democrats the Freddie and Fanny were broken and that the loans being given out were dangerous etc. Do you not remember all the Democrats like Barney Frank, whose lover was at the head of one of these agencies, all coming out and claiming there was no housing bubble and that Republicans were just trying to scare people and keep houses away from the poor? You can still find the video on you tube if you want to check it out. Our economy has had and incredibly slow recovery as can be seen in the eyes of the huge number of people who still can't or won't get a job; partially because to buy votes Obama continues to try to provide more benefits to them. Your post truly proves that Liberal have had some form of lobotomy in childhood leaving them incapable of rational thought and consideration of the facts. I used to argue with liberals until I realized they simply can't see facts any more than the color blind can see green. If our economy is so great then explain why we have so many more people on food stamps. What happened to Obama's promises of lower health care premiums and lower college tuition? Wasn't there something about transparency in there also? He is a complete and utter failure and will go down in history as the most egotistical, pathetic, ineffective, partisan President of all time. He also recurrently seems to forget this little thing called the Constitution he swore to uphold and which is the only instrument giving him any power. Without it he is a community organizer so before he tramples it again he should consider that if the rest the country treated it with the same disdain that he does, he would be out of a job. Have you seen his majesty's approval rating lately? By the way, the only racism I have seen in regard to this President was the fact that nearly every black american voted for him and when asked again and again why, the response almost uniformly was, "Because he is black." That is racism. I did not vote for him because I quickly realized he was all smoke and mirrors and had an agenda that he elevated far above his actual duties as President and would stop at nothing to try to force his will over due process. This is very very dangerous and has been the same mentality that brought us Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler, Chiang Kia-sheck, Leopold II, Tojo, Pol Pot, Jim Jones and Mao Zedong to name just a few. The only delusional ones are those who still think this President has done anything other than alienate us from our allies and kited checks onto the accounts of our children and their children.

Pete.[/QUOTE]Thank you for illustrating the exact kind of rabid foaming at the mouth senseless anti-Obama obsession that Jackson has so often represented in his rants and ridiculous comparisons on this thread. Again, I reiterate that anyone who can even begin to compare the Obama administration with the policies of the Kirchners and / or what is happening in Argentina knows and understands less than nothing about Argentina.

[QUOTE=RockHarders;437898]Wrong. Highly educated urban voters overwhelmingly voted for Obama.[/QUOTE]"Urban" voters? Your prejudices show themselves again. Anyone who's not from a city is a hick.

I wrote "There wasn't much of a correlation between education level and voter preference." That's true. Exit polls indicated people with college educations were more likely to vote for Romney than people who didn't go to college. It is true that people with postgraduate degrees were more likely to vote for Obama than other voters, but not "overwhelmingly" so.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;437889] I am slowly-but-surely reading the article you recommended, by the way. I get the hard copy New Yorker, and this week's edition is sitting in front of my commode.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, try to finish before 2016! Otherwise, use it to wipe your ass.

[QUOTE=RockHarders;437899]Thank you for illustrating the exact kind of rabid foaming at the mouth senseless anti-Obama obsession that Jackson has so often represented in his rants and ridiculous comparisons on this thread. Again, I reiterate that anyone who can even begin to compare the Obama administration with the policies of the Kirchners and / or what is happening in Argentina knows and understands less than nothing about Argentina.[/QUOTE]This has nothing to do with RH's comment or anything else on this thread but TL is currently receiving anti-rabies injections to avoid "Rabid Foaming at the Mouth" due to a Fucking Bat that ended up in his living room a week ago!

Holy Shit Batman!

There I was watching TV and a fucking Bat ended up next to me! Now I have to get a bunch of shots! In the states it could be about $7,000.00 dollars!

Now that's socialized medicine working for you because here it's free.

My ex-partner told me not to worry because worse things have been in my place sitting on the sofa next to me! Chicas?

Not to worry though! I'm not contagious unless I'm foaming at the mouth!

TL.

[QUOTE=Esten;437894]1. I'm not sure how much of a factor the loss of unemployment benefits was on the December report, but to the extent that loss of benefits caused the unemployment rate to go down, all that tells me is that the rate could have dropped below 7% sooner if the benefits had not been extended so long. With regard to 1 Million fracking jobs, that's great if true, but one component of the 6 Million jobs created since the recovery began in 2009. These data easily demonstrate that Republicans were wrong when they said the Stimulus failed, and that the Affordable Care Act was going to be a huge job-killer. It is true we could have been lower than 6.7% at this point, but our challenges have been more with large government job losses (700 K), and the effects of Corporatism. 2. I think the number was more like 5 million policies cancelled, due to ACA [I]and[/I] the decisions of insurance companies. Insurance companies have been cancelling policies for years before ACA came along. There are not millions of people who are now without insurance because of ACA. In December, it was estimated that fewer than 500,000 people who received cancellation notices have not yet signed up for new coverage. Why are you one of them, Dccpa? I don't think the cancellations and signups can be directly added / subtracted. It gets complicated to dissect the numbers. Ultimately, a key and simple number to follow is simply the overall uninsured rate. It was at 17.3% in December, and at 16.1% earlier this month. We should expect ACA will keep moving that number lower.[/QUOTE]1. A lot of truth in your first lines. What you said is that the unemployment rate would have gone down sooner if we had stopped counting more of the unemployed sooner. We are already doing that, it is called the U3 unemployment rate. But why don't we stop counting all unemployed and have full employment? That makes as much sense as not counting the unemployed whose benefits have run out. The key true measure of unemployment is the labor force participation rate and it is at a multi-decade low. They will probably start counting housewives / househusbands and we will be back to record participation rates.

I didn't follow what conservatives stated regarding Obamacare costing jobs. My opinion has always been that Obamacare would create jobs, but cause overall detriment to the workers. For low end jobs, businesses are cutting worker hours to stay under the 30 hour Obamacare limit. So, yay, we have more burger flippers and waitresses. They just don't work enough hours to earn over the poverty level. That and the fact that the young, I am invincible, citizens, were not going to want to pay for healthcare. Anyone with functioning brain cells knew that the young people were not going to be interested in signing up for Obamacare. Yet, from the beginning, it was stated by the Democrats, that young people signing up in large numbers was essential for Obamacare to function without subsidies. Obamacare is and always was destined to become another government subsidy program by a government that is broke. As far as Corporatism, I have as much use for it as I do for Republicans and Demcrats.

2. The number depends upon whether you actually count those that lose their health insurance or not. What I saw from conservative sources was 16 million and what I saw from liberal sources was around 4-5 million. Don't know how the conservatives got their 16 million number, as it seemed too high. AP and other liberal sources got to their lower numbers by only counting some of the states. For example, I live in Arkansas and they counted none from my state. So, the low end numbers are deliberately false. In my office there are two separate single person businesses. Both of us have different plans and both of us lost our health insurance due to the policies not meeting the Obamacare requirements. It really isn't difficult to determine how many people lost their health insurance as they received notices by October 1st. And for both of us, the premiums are far higher than what we were paying before. Obamacare essentially takes away your consumer choice as a healthy individual to somewhat self insure through catastrophic insurance coverage.

Dccpa, not that it is worth quibbling about, but I did not say what you claim. It was your original statement about the effect of the unemployed running out of benefits, and I only said 'to the extent that what you said is true'. The U3 is the official rate, and it has not, should not and will not be calculated any differently. It provides the apples-to-apples comparison with historical rates. You are correct about the LFPR, however the underlying factors should be dissected out (mainly, the baby boomer effect) to properly gauge it's meaning. Overall, while I think we have made good progress with the creation of 8 Million new jobs (I previously underestimated it at 6 M), I absolutely agree we need to do more to create more good paying jobs.

[QUOTE]For low end jobs, businesses are cutting worker hours to stay under the 30 hour Obamacare limit. So, yay, we have more burger flippers and waitresses. [/QUOTE]Well, Darden experimented with this and pulled back after it became a huge public relations disaster. Walmart actually elevated 35,000 part-time staff to full-time status last fall, making them eligible for healthcare benefits. So, please post some links to data so we can see how big this ACA effect is. Here's a link for you:

Bartiromo says Obamacare is turning us into 'a part-time employment country'.
PolitiFact Rating: False
[URL]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/oct/22/maria-bartiromo/bartiromo-says-obamacare-turning-us-part-time-empl/[/URL]

[QUOTE]For example, I live in Arkansas and they counted none from my state. So, the low end numbers are deliberately false. In my office there are two separate single person businesses. Both of us have different plans and both of us lost our health insurance due to the policies not meeting the Obamacare requirements. It really isn't difficult to determine how many people lost their health insurance as they received notices by October 1st. And for both of us, the premiums are far higher than what we were paying before. Obamacare essentially takes away your consumer choice as a healthy individual to somewhat self insure through catastrophic insurance coverage.[/QUOTE]Could you please post a link that insurance policy cancellations were not counted in your state. Concerning your situation, I have little sympathy for it. First, your 'hardship' pales in comparison to that of someone who needed healthcare and was denied, or was forced into bankruptcy getting it. Second, based on your income, you may be eligible for subsidies to make your insurance more affordable. Third, we all pay the costs when someone with inadequate insurance needs emergency care. Fourth, in addition to people under the age of 30, people in your situation have been made eligible for a hardship exemption, making you eligible to apply for the same type of catastrophic coverage you claim you are being denied.

Republicans must hate it when Obama comes out with positive statistics and a positive message. It goes against the wet blanket of pessimism that Republicans are constantly trying to drape over the country.

Aside from the race comment, Rock Harders is spot-on with his assessment. How amusing to see Mr. Sideburn pop in to resurrect an old dinosaur I thought Republicans had retired, namely the argument that Fannie and Freddie were a significant contributor to the financial meltdown. Wall Street insiders admit it was Wall Street, Bush said it was Wall Street, and even tonight on Fox News, O'Reilly said it was because of the banks. Why did he not keep up the narrative that it was Fannie and Freddie? Did he forget? LMAO! Fannie and Freddie, birtherism, phony IRS and Benghazi scandals, claims that left-wing policy is driven by buying votes with free money; you wonder how Republicans don't connect the dots and understand their false and deceptive narratives are actually a key reason why their brand has been so badly damaged.

[QUOTE=Esten;437923]Republicans must hate it when Obama comes out with positive statistics and a positive message. It goes against the wet blanket of pessimism that Republicans are constantly trying to drape over the country.

Aside from the race comment, Rock Harders is spot-on with his assessment. How amusing to see Mr. Sideburn pop in to resurrect an old dinosaur I thought Republicans had retired, namely the argument that Fannie and Freddie were a significant contributor to the financial meltdown. Wall Street insiders admit it was Wall Street, Bush said it was Wall Street, and even tonight on Fox News, O'Reilly said it was because of the banks. Why did he not keep up the narrative that it was Fannie and Freddie? Did he forget? LMAO! Fannie and Freddie, birtherism, phony IRS and Benghazi scandals, claims that left-wing policy is driven by buying votes with free money; you wonder how Republicans don't connect the dots and understand their false and deceptive narratives are actually a key reason why their brand has been so badly damaged.[/QUOTE]The speech was just one misleading statistic after another, and really amounted to simply more fodder for the LIVs.

For example, bragging about the economy having created 8 million new jobs since Obama took office. The number sounds great to the LIV, but in fact 8 million jobs over 5 years in a country with 315 million people is pathetic and lags every other economic recovery in the past 100 years. Hell, it's not even enough to keep pace with the country's population growth.

Another example, bragging about the increase in the domestic oil and gas production when in fact he opposed offshore drilling, the Keystone Pipeline, and fracking, which is in fact the primary reason why domestic oil and gas production is so strong.

I did note that the President couldn't stop himself from promising yet more free money to his constituents, in this case raising the minimum pay for government contractors. How nice of him to so cavalierly spend my money by raising the cost of constructing and maintaining every government building in the country.

Anyway, his agenda was all "small ball" stuff and clearly showed a man who has come to realize in the beginning of his 5th year in office that his presidency is a failure.

Good job presenting the speech though, and I'm sure that it had the intended effect on the targeted LIVs, thus making another win for the liberals.

Thanks,

Jax.

[QUOTE=PeterSideburn;437897]I love it when liberals call rational people delusional and then blame the malady on their own delusional belief that not admiring King Obama has something to do with Race. How racist is it that you assume everyone who doesn't like this present must be a racist. This is very very dangerous and has been the same mentality that brought us Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler, Chiang Kia-sheck, Leopold II, Tojo, Pol Pot, Jim Jones and Mao Zedong to name just a few. The only delusional ones are those who still think this President has done anything other than alienate us from our allies and kited checks onto the accounts of our children and their children.Pete.[/QUOTE]The world is changing, America is changing. You had it good but your time is up. And in case you are not convince, mongering has change, too. The glory days are over, be it BA or Bangkok. More expensive, more lousy service, less pickings, etc. There is nothing that you and I can do. Take it or leave it.

[QUOTE=Esten;437923]Republicans must hate it when Obama comes out with positive statistics and a positive message. It goes against the wet blanket of pessimism that Republicans are constantly trying to drape over the country.

Aside from the race comment, Rock Harders is spot-on with his assessment. How amusing to see Mr. Sideburn pop in to resurrect an old dinosaur I thought Republicans had retired, namely the argument that Fannie and Freddie were a significant contributor to the financial meltdown. Wall Street insiders admit it was Wall Street, Bush said it was Wall Street, and even tonight on Fox News, O'Reilly said it was because of the banks. Why did he not keep up the narrative that it was Fannie and Freddie? Did he forget? LMAO! Fannie and Freddie, birtherism, phony IRS and Benghazi scandals, claims that left-wing policy is driven by buying votes with free money; you wonder how Republicans don't connect the dots and understand their false and deceptive narratives are actually a key reason why their brand has been so badly damaged.[/QUOTE]The Fool-in-charge says give me a plan re healthcare.

Well here is not just a proposal but what is actually working now.

[URL]http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2013-fall/dr-josh-umbehr-on-concierge-medicine-revolution.asp[/URL]

BTW, he also said that prescription cost for seniors had been lowered, 1/1/13 I paid 142.75 for one, on 1/8/14 same thing was 199.00. That is lower by -56.25.

Don.

[QUOTE=Jackson;437924]
For example, bragging about the economy having created 8 million new jobs since Obama took office. The number sounds great to the LIV, but in fact 8 million jobs over 5 years in a country with 315 million people is pathetic and lags every other economic recovery in the past 100 years. Hell, it's not even enough to keep pace with the country's population growth.[/QUOTE]Both Jackson and President Obama were correct. Obama was selective in the definition of job growth and the time period he selected.

[B]Fact Check -Jackson[/B]

Population growth of USA during 2010 to 2013: 0.7% to 0.8% per year
8 million jobs / 4 years = 2 million jobs per year

Population of USA = 315 million
Job growth / year = 2 million / 315 million = 0.6%/ year

Growth of private sector jobs was indeed less than population growth.

I am only able to verify the statement that employment gains (as a % of population) "lag every other economic recovery in the past 100 years" back for 66 years, before the data runs out:

[URL]http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=ra9[/URL]

[b]Fact Check - President Obama[/b]

8 million jobs were indeed created in the private sector over the last 4 years. Including jobs lost in government, however, only 7.5 million nonfarm jobs were added in the last 4 years, since 2010. The net job creation since Obama took office in 2009 was 3.2 million jobs. See the table below the graph in the following for data:

[URL]http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth[/URL]

Esten, if you're reading this, the only reason I dug this up was because of your belief that the declining unemployment numbers are encouraging. I don't believe they are.

[QUOTE=DonB;437938]The Fool-in-charge says give me a plan re healthcare.

Well here is not just a proposal but what is actually working now.

[URL]http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2013-fall/dr-josh-umbehr-on-concierge-medicine-revolution.asp[/URL]

BTW, he also said that prescription cost for seniors had been lowered, 1/1/13 I paid 142.75 for one, on 1/8/14 same thing was 199.00. That is lower by -56.25.

Don.[/QUOTE]Ever heard that mantra before? Meanwhile, I am paying $5 per visit, per procedure, per prescription. I know, I am lucky. Last weekend, had to endured a visit to a Chinese Temple. Was told by my gf that my birthyear was not aligned with the Year of the Horse. After the cleansing ceremony, I never saw a happier trio of women, my gf, future mother-in-law, and my gf's niece. I knew it was not working because had it been, it would been a nice threesome after lunch. Meanwhile, the temple is raking in cash like a casino.

Liberal proof: "I think, therefore it is and everyone should just accept it. Enough said.".

Rabid and foaming.."When no actual response can be created just demonize again and again until most the sheep believe it is true.".

Basis for your last statement of "fact" according to Rock Harder is ...? Your credentials that makes you grand inquisitor of all that Argentine? Let me guess, you live there and therefore you know all?

Cheers,

Pete.

[QUOTE=RockHarders;437899]Thank you for illustrating the exact kind of rabid foaming at the mouth senseless anti-Obama obsession that Jackson has so often represented in his rants and ridiculous comparisons on this thread. Again, I reiterate that anyone who can even begin to compare the Obama administration with the policies of the Kirchners and / or what is happening in Argentina knows and understands less than nothing about Argentina.[/QUOTE]

I completely disagree. I do not expect a handout or an advantage. I expect and opportunity. If America stopped giving handouts and got back to expecting its citizens to earn their own keep and to strive for excellence and not mediocrity then the same elements that propelled America to greatness would keep it in good stead. When you have the left preaching doom, gloom, race, and a million reasons why people are picked on, less advantaged, etc. Etc. It only drives them down thinking they have to accept their current position, status, finances etc. If instead we rewarded hard work, intellectual thought, excellence etc. And stopped with all the excuses we would remain exceptional on the World stage. If we instead behave like the mediocre handout striving don't leave me behind masses then we will become more and more similar by regression toward the social mean we have chosen to emulate. When there are true winners and losers in any sport or life, the losers or initially less successful get better. In all cases they improve faster than in sports where there is not "score." In many cases the initial underdogs over take the "obvious winners." Not thinking of ourselves as too this or too that but rather as works in progress heading toward an individual defined goal would a great start to a wonderful American future.

Your comment about mongering is interesting. It is only the supply that is adapting and setting the stage for their own success. I applaud them for it. The consumers can choose the threshold at which they stop supporting the activity. In Obama's World we would need to offset the increase in "ask" with subsidies to mongers with incomes less than X and we would need to open free schools for the supply side so the poorest performers could be elevated while we apply a tax to the highest performers so that we can spread the wealth evenly.

Pete.

[QUOTE=RevBS;437935]The world is changing, America is changing. You had it good but your time is up. And in case you are not convince, mongering has change, too. The glory days are over, be it BA or Bangkok. More expensive, more lousy service, less pickings, etc. There is nothing that you and I can do. Take it or leave it.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=PeterSideburn;437943] Your credentials that makes you grand inquisitor of all that Argentine? Let me guess, you live there and therefore you know all?

Cheers,

Pete.[/QUOTE]I live and do business in Argentina and have been swimming through the Argentine political and economic system in a way that gives me an uncommon perspective and understanding about the way things really are here.

[QUOTE=PeterSideburn;437944]I completely disagree. I do not expect a handout or an advantage. I expect and opportunity. If America stopped giving handouts and got back to expecting its citizens to earn their own keep and to strive for excellence and not mediocrity then the same elements that propelled America to greatness would keep it in good stead. When you have the left preaching doom, gloom, race, and a million reasons why people are picked on, less advantaged, etc. Etc. It only drives them down thinking they have to accept their current position, status, finances etc. If instead we rewarded hard work, intellectual thought, excellence etc. And stopped with all the excuses we would remain exceptional on the World stage. If we instead behave like the mediocre handout striving don't leave me behind masses then we will become more and more similar by regression toward the social mean we have chosen to emulate. When there are true winners and losers in any sport or life, the losers or initially less successful get better. In all cases they improve faster than in sports where there is not "score." In many cases the initial underdogs over take the "obvious winners." Not thinking of ourselves as too this or too that but rather as works in progress heading toward an individual defined goal would a great start to a wonderful American future.

Your comment about mongering is interesting. It is only the supply that is adapting and setting the stage for their own success. I applaud them for it. The consumers can choose the threshold at which they stop supporting the activity. In Obama's World we would need to offset the increase in "ask" with subsidies to mongers with incomes less than X and we would need to open free schools for the supply side so the poorest performers could be elevated while we apply a tax to the highest performers so that we can spread the wealth evenly.

Pete.[/QUOTE]I whole-heartedly agree on individual responsibility & work ethics. Where we disagree is what is the role of government in all this. Your take on mongering miss what I was trying to imply, that is, nothing stays the same forever. Yes, greatness has not quite left the shores of America, talent is still coming from all over the world every day. But the rest of the world has caught up with America in the last few decades in most areas, and America is now on a slippery slope in terms of excess, self indulgence and discipline. Yes, I do believe in a role of government in correcting & recovering competitiveness & work ethics.

Why Bother voting if your going to be unhappy with the results anyway?

Democrat or Republican?

Or Like Me and My Views:

Rejecting Politics Is Also A Political Stance.

But Rejecting Pussy is a Homosexual Act!

Like that famous Anus once said, "Can't we all just get along?

Why don't we start a website called American Politics During The Obama Presidency dot com?

Then the Boys that would rather fight than fuck can waste their breath and time on that site.

Instead of this one.

Just a thought.

I know that what happens in the USA matters to most of you but.....

Fuck It!

I give up.

Thanks Anyway,

TL.

TL.

I actually agree with your statement completely. We may differ on how or what the role would be but I bet we could sit in a room and find common ground on many issues. My biggest issue is the fact that our legislators and President do not even try to do the same. I agree with some of TL's points as well but I refuse to throw in the the towel because of some losers in DC. I think it is great that the World has caught up in a sense because, "A rising tide raises all ships." I need the US to be exceptional, but I would love it if all countries were as well. True competition with a gentle and honest spirit would likely get us all there.

Pete.

[QUOTE=RevBS;437951]I whole-heartedly agree on individual responsibility & work ethics. Where we disagree is what is the role of government in all this. Your take on mongering miss what I was trying to imply, that is, nothing stays the same forever. Yes, greatness has not quite left the shores of America, talent is still coming from all over the world every day. But the rest of the world has caught up with America in the last few decades in most areas, and America is now on a slippery slope in terms of excess, self indulgence and discipline. Yes, I do believe in a role of government in correcting & recovering competitiveness & work ethics.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=RevBS;437942]Ever heard that mantra before? Meanwhile, I am paying $5 per visit, per procedure, per prescription. I know, I am lucky. Last weekend, had to endured a visit to a Chinese Temple. Was told by my gf that my birthyear was not aligned with the Year of the Horse. After the cleansing ceremony, I never saw a happier trio of women, my gf, future mother-in-law, and my gf's niece. I knew it was not working because had it been, it would been a nice threesome after lunch. Meanwhile, the temple is raking in cash like a casino.[/QUOTE]Mantra, what do mean? Did you actually read the link?

Here is health care the way it should be and actually put to practice and this is the only response I get.

Don.

[QUOTE=DonB;437964]

Originally Posted by RevBS
Ever heard that mantra before? Meanwhile, I am paying $5 per visit, per procedure, per prescription. I know, I am lucky. Last weekend, had to endured a visit to a Chinese Temple. Was told by my gf that my birthyear was not aligned with the Year of the Horse. After the cleansing ceremony, I never saw a happier trio of women, my gf, future mother-in-law, and my gf's niece. I knew it was not working because had it been, it would been a nice threesome after lunch. Meanwhile, the temple is raking in cash like a casino.


Mantra, what do mean? Did you actually read the link?

Here is health care the way it should be and actually put to practice and this is the only response I get.

Don.[/QUOTE]Don, While you are right, practically this system will not work in America today with Obamacare. If government mandates that individuals have low-deductible insurance, and the physician does not accept insurance, then only a small percentage of the population will use the concierge physician. It's a pity, because this sort of thing, combined with catastrophic (very-high-deductible) insurance would improve quality and lower costs.

And, "future mother-in-law"? Marriage? Black Shirt, we've had our differences, but please, don't do it. Think about it carefully. And having a foursome with your wife, mother-in-law and niece is sick. (Jk).

[QUOTE=RockHarders;437899]Thank you for illustrating the exact kind of rabid foaming at the mouth senseless anti-Obama obsession that Jackson has so often represented in his rants and ridiculous comparisons on this thread. Again, I reiterate that anyone who can even begin to compare the Obama administration with the policies of the Kirchners and / or what is happening in Argentina knows and understands less than nothing about Argentina.[/QUOTE]And I suggest that anyone who is so indoctrinated with liberal ideology as to be incapable of comparing the Obama administration with the policies of the Kirchners and / or what is happening in Argentina will never understand the big picture.

[QUOTE=DonB;437938]The Fool-in-charge says give me a plan re healthcare.

Well here is not just a proposal but what is actually working now.

[URL]http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2013-fall/dr-josh-umbehr-on-concierge-medicine-revolution.asp[/URL]

BTW, he also said that prescription cost for seniors had been lowered, 1/1/13 I paid 142.75 for one, on 1/8/14 same thing was 199.00. That is lower by -56.25.

Don.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=RevBS;437942]Ever heard that mantra before? Meanwhile, I am paying $5 per visit, per procedure, per prescription. I know, I am lucky. Last weekend, had to endured a visit to a Chinese Temple. Was told by my gf that my birthyear was not aligned with the Year of the Horse. After the cleansing ceremony, I never saw a happier trio of women, my gf, future mother-in-law, and my gf's niece. I knew it was not working because had it been, it would been a nice threesome after lunch. Meanwhile, the temple is raking in cash like a casino.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=DonB;437964]Mantra, what do mean? Did you actually read the link?

Here is health care the way it should be and actually put to practice and this is the only response I get.

Don.[/QUOTE]I think Don B's link illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding in the difference between health care and health insurance.

Up until the mid-60's, routine health care was largely paid by individuals out-of-pocket as services were needed, and health insurance was purchased to protect individuals from catastrophic health maladies should they arise.

However, over time, health insurance was expanded to include more and more basic health care services, thus expanding the overuse of these services.

We all know people who run down to the doctor's office for every little sniffle, don't we?

In addition, relatively meaningless co-pays have eliminated the market constraints on the price of these services.

We all know that people in general are much less likely to be concerned with the price of such services when they themselves are not actually paying the bill.

Anyway, as my friend El Queso suggested once in this forum, when you buy auto insurance, it doesn't cover windshield wipers, oil changes or tires, these being things you have to pay for yourself separately.

Imagine for a moment what auto insurance would cost if such policies included coverage for windshield wipers, oil changes and tires (abet with relatively meaningless co-pays).

Well, that's what ObamaCare mandates, and as a result we are witnessing the results of a liberal policy that is bound to fail because it is based on a manifestly inaccurate model of human behavior.

The solution is easy: Sandra Fluke can buy her own fucking birth control.

Of course I'm sure my detractors will suggest "[i]that anyone who can even begin to compare health insurance to auto insurance probably knows and understands less than nothing about health insurance or auto insurance[/I]".

Flame on!

Thanks,

Jax

[QUOTE=Jackson;437970]I think Don B's link illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding in the difference between health care and health insurance.

relatively meaningless co-pays have eliminated the market constraints on the price of these services.

[/QUOTE]Meaningless co-pays fit the something-for-nothing model to a T. I was a participant in a medical plan that originally had NO co-pays, and that plan almost went broke. When the plan instituted a modest $250 deductible per year together with a $50.00 co-pay for doctor's office visits, it became solvent almost overnight. These were not poor people. Almost every participant who wanted to made an inflation adjusted upper five figure income, and many had six figure incomes.

Tres3.

[QUOTE=Jackson;437970]Up until the mid-60's, routine health care was largely paid by individuals out-of-pocket as services were needed, and health insurance was purchased to protect individuals from catastrophic health maladies should they arise.

However, over time, health insurance was expanded to include more and more basic health care services, thus expanding the overuse of these services.[ / I].

Flame on!

Thanks,

Jax / QUOTE].

So what happened over-night in American healthcare? Who benefited the most? Ever heard of HMOs? Today, any doctor will give up to 80 per cent discount if you pay them cash and hug you with joy. But will the hospitals? Yes, but can you afford it even after a 50% discount? Do Americans have cash? No, not for a long time.

[QUOTE=Jackson;437970]I think Don B's link illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding in the difference between health care and health insurance.

Up until the mid-60's, routine health care was largely paid by individuals out-of-pocket as services were needed, and health insurance was purchased to protect individuals from catastrophic health maladies should they arise.

However, over time, health insurance was expanded to include more and more basic health care services, thus expanding the overuse of these services.

We all know people who run down to the doctor's office for every little sniffle, don't we?

In addition, relatively meaningless co-pays have eliminated the market constraints on the price of these services.

We all know that people in general are much less likely to be concerned with the price of such services when they themselves are not actually paying the bill.

Anyway, as my friend El Queso suggested once in this forum, when you buy auto insurance, it doesn't cover windshield wipers, oil changes or tires, these being things you have to pay for yourself separately.

Imagine for a moment what auto insurance would cost if such policies included coverage for windshield wipers, oil changes and tires (abet with relatively meaningless co-pays).

Well, that's what ObamaCare mandates, and as a result we are witnessing the results of a liberal policy that is bound to fail because it is based on a manifestly inaccurate model of human behavior.

The solution is easy: Sandra Fluke can buy her own fucking birth control.

Of course I'm sure my detractors will suggest "[i]that anyone who can even begin to compare health insurance to auto insurance probably knows and understands less than nothing about health insurance or auto insurance[/I]".

Flame on!

Thanks,

Jax[/QUOTE]You might have a valid point if the "windshield wipers, oil changes, and tune-ups" of medical care (lets say for sake of argument those would be a broken leg, a bad cut with dozens of stitches, a dislocated shoulder, some sort of respiratory infection) in the United States were even remotely comparable in retail price to actual windshield wiper replacements, oil changes, or tune-ups. You are well aware that if you go to a hospital in the United States with a broken leg with no insurance and "pay cash" that the bill could easily be tens of thousands of dollars. Every civilized country in the world (and even some less-than-civilized places such as Argentina and Brasil) view healthcare as a social responsibility that everybody is entitled access to. Obamacare surely need refinement but at least it is a step in the right direction in that it attempts to give everyone affordable access to healthcare.

[QUOTE=RockHarders;437978] You are well aware that if you go to a hospital in the United States with a broken leg with no insurance and "pay cash" that the bill could easily be tens of thousands of dollars.[/QUOTE]As you know that's because the USA has a broken system where insurance companies, Medicare and Medicaid negotiate lower, but still high prices for services from hospitals. The guy without insurance is either left out in the cold, paying ridiculous prices, or he just elects not to pay. When the free market is allowed to operate and consumers shop for services, for example with corrective eye surgery and outpatient cosmetic surgery, costs are low and quality is high. Singapore has done something like this, where people pay 100% for the small stuff but are covered for catastrophes.

[QUOTE=RockHarders;437978]Every civilized country in the world (and even some less-than-civilized places such as Argentina and Brasil) view healthcare as a social responsibility that everybody is entitled access to. Obamacare surely need refinement but at least it is a step in the right direction in that it attempts to give everyone affordable access to healthcare.[/QUOTE]Before Obamacare, everyone in the USA could get healthcare. Admittedly there was the problem of those who made enough money that they didn't qualify for Medicaid, and who chose not to get any type of insurance. When faced with catastrophic accidents or illnesses they could be bankrupted. Not to say that something shouldn't have been done about that, but only a very small % of the population was affected.

With Obamacare, if you're healthy you can choose to remain uninsured and pay a small penalty. Then if something catastrophic happens, you can go out and get insurance at the same rate everyone else pays. This is not a fair or efficient system, and it's going to create problems as a high % of the healthy will choose not to be insured. It's ironic, a system to cause more Americans to have health insurance could have the opposite effect, once people figure out they can game the system.

Obamacare is not a step in the right direction. It's doubling down on a failed system. We can't afford to pay 20% of GDP for health care.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;437967]And, "future mother-in-law"? Marriage? Black Shirt, we've had our differences, but please, don't do it. Think about it carefully. And having a foursome with your wife, mother-in-law and niece is sick. (Jk).[/QUOTE]Sanity is the ability to hover between reality and fantasy. I have always been a fantasy guy, and have enjoy every minute of it up to now. Nothing will really change, this has been a gradual evolutionary process for some time now.

There is a season to everything in life.

[quote]Could you please post a link that insurance policy cancellations were not counted in your state. (1) Concerning your situation, I have little sympathy for it. First, your 'hardship' pales in comparison to that of someone who needed healthcare and was denied, or (2) was forced into bankruptcy getting it. Second, based on your income, you may be eligible for subsidies to make your insurance more affordable. (3) Third, we all pay the costs when someone with inadequate insurance needs emergency care. (4) Fourth, in addition to people under the age of 30, people in your situation have been made eligible for a hardship exemption, making you eligible to apply for the same type of catastrophic coverage you claim you are being denied.[/quote]So much to reply to and so little time.

1. Don't recall classifying my situation as a hardship or asking for your sympathy. So stuff it.

2. So now people were being forced into bankruptcy getting health insurance? Seen several people go bankrupt because they did not to have health insurance and got ill, but went bankrupt getting health insurance? To quote a certain liberal, link.

3. Guess what, you still pay for the others. The only difference is that you will pay more as the insurance companies are already gaming the system and you get to pay for the added layer of governmental administration.

4. If you are speaking to the claim that you can still keep your insurance, that exemption is a figment of liberal imagination. Not that the insurance companies would have had time to reoffer the cancelled plans and get them approved by the state insurance commissioners, but our liberal governor stopped them from doing so. The only hardship exemption I am aware of would let me avoid the penalty for not having insurance for the fist year. You know, the insurance that I previously had before an elitist government took it away from me.

The links you requested are below. As an added bonus, I am including the link from today where Obama admits that the Tea Party party groups. Wait, didn't' the liberals claim it was even-handed?

"Obama said "some boneheaded decisions" were to blame for extra scrutiny the IRS had given to conservative Tea Party groups seeking tax-exempt status, and that the issue had been cleared up during "multiple hearings" in Congress."

[URL]http://sports.yahoo.com/news/obama-spars-fox-news-host-testy-pre-super-235921418--nfl.html[/URL]

First the AP report which greatly understates the cancellations:

[URL]http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/02/associated-press-says-millions-are-losing-their-health-plans-because-of-obamacare/[/URL]

Next, the CBO report:

[URL]http://americanglob.com/2013/02/05/seven-million-people-will-lose-their-health-insurance-under-obamacare/[/URL]

Respond if you want, but my busy season has started and I won't have time to reply.

[QUOTE=Dccpa;438034]4. If you are speaking to the claim that you can still keep your insurance, that exemption is a figment of liberal imagination. Not that the insurance companies would have had time to reoffer the cancelled plans and get them approved by the state insurance commissioners, but our liberal governor stopped them from doing so. The only hardship exemption I am aware of would let me avoid the penalty for not having insurance for the fist year. You know, the insurance that I previously had before an elitist government took it away from me.[/QUOTE]For people who had their plans cancelled, the one year hardship exemption allows them to buy catastrophic coverage. Not necessarily the exact same plan they had before, but another catastrophic plan. I just looked up one in your state, it took me 5 minutes:

CATASTROPHIC
PLAN BENEFITS
3 primary care physician visits at no cost
Low monthly premium
No additional costs after deductible
$6,350 Deductible
$6,350 Out-of-pocket maximum
YOUR MONTHLY COST $239.17

Thanks for the link on cancellations not being counted in your state. I didn't realize some states weren't reporting numbers for this. I haven't followed it too closely, as it was fertile ground for obfuscatory manipulation by critics. We know some cancellations involved automatic replacement with an alternate QHP. What matters is the subset that hasn't been able to find comparable or better coverage at a similar price. Those numbers are unclear, though a legitimate issue. Re: forced into bankruptcy, I said this was due to needing / getting healthcare, not heathcare insurance.

Have not been able to catch the full interview yet, but the snippets that Fox is so proudly ensnaring its viewers of the Obama interview leads one to conclude that Obama is the "Saviour" of Fox's ratings. In the so-call 10 minute pre-SuperBowl introductory interview, I see a "Righteous but Desperate" O'Reilly leaning forward to make his points about Obama's lies and failings. His role, as the leader of the "tired angry old white men", a heavy burden on his shoulders.

But like Ali's "float like a butterly, sting like a bee", a very relaxed Obama just lean back into his armchair, the accusations disappearing like jabs into the air. Obama has disappointed almost everyone, but I think our expectations for change too high and I for one, was naive enough to underestimate the hate and opposition that his presidency would generate. With nothing worthwhile to say but needing publicity, Donald Trump has chimed in to say that Obama did not show presidential character by not wearing a tie to do the interview. Him and his front hair patch that must have come from his former's wife Ivana's pubic bush.

Obama gave Fox publicity & ratings that they never could have fantasize. Just watch Fox News now, and you will see every anchor & show host just oozing with outrage that they could be bias and unfair. A good laugh, but a sad state of American affairs. Meanwhile, O'Silly's coffers are brimming. Who actually goes and watch his shows on the road? And his books? Maybe I'll write one myself. How about, The Pitfalls of Mongering & Friendship or the 12 Steps of a Good Cum.

[QUOTE=RevBS;438062]Have not been able to catch the full interview yet, but the snippets that Fox is so proudly ensnaring its viewers of the Obama interview leads one to conclude that Obama is the "Saviour" of Fox's ratings. In the so-call 10 minute pre-SuperBowl introductory interview, I see a "Righteous but Desperate" O'Reilly leaning forward to make his points about Obama's lies and failings. His role, as the leader of the "tired angry old white men", a heavy burden on his shoulders.

But like Ali's "float like a butterly, sting like a bee", a very relaxed Obama just lean back into his armchair, the accusations disappearing like jabs into the air. Obama has disappointed almost everyone, but I think our expectations for change too high and I for one, was naive enough to underestimate the hate and opposition that his presidency would generate. With nothing worthwhile to say but needing publicity, Donald Trump has chimed in to say that Obama did not show presidential character by not wearing a tie to do the interview. Him and his front hair patch that must have come from his former's wife Ivana's pubic bush.

Obama gave Fox publicity & ratings that they never could have fantasize. Just watch Fox News now, and you will see every anchor & show host just oozing with outrage that they could be bias and unfair. A good laugh, but a sad state of American affairs. Meanwhile, O'Silly's coffers are brimming. Who actually goes and watch his shows on the road? And his books? Maybe I'll write one myself. How about, The Pitfalls of Mongering & Friendship or the 12 Steps of a Good Cum.[/QUOTE]ROTFLMAO!

Me thinks thou doth protest too much.

You're right about this though: Obama certainly laughed everything off.

IRS? Ha, ha, ha, it was just a boneheaded idea on the part of some underlings.

Benghazi? You know, the fog of war, etc. Yuck, yuck, yuck.

If you like your plan you can keep your plan? We had a grandfather clause, but I guess it wasn't correctly worded, hardy-har-har!

I'm sure the LIVs are telling themselves "[I]See man, I told you so. Obama is completely innocent, it's just the fucking conservatives always trying to fuck up things for everybody else."[/I].

Thanks,

Jax.

[QUOTE=RevBS;438062]Maybe I'll write one myself. How about, The Pitfalls of Mongering & Friendship or the 12 Steps of a Good Cum.[/QUOTE]Please do. Then we can compare the sales of your book to the number of books that O'Reily has sold.

[QUOTE=Jackson;438065]Please do. Then we can compare the sales of your book to the number of books that O'Reily has sold.[/QUOTE]With his Northeast upbringing, and his liberal educational background, O'Reilly's politics is probably more left than right. At worse, he is on middle ground. I think Obama easily sees that, so that is why the banter is for public consumption. But with Fox seasonings.

His present mega business empire is a long way from his days on Inside Edition. I give him kudos for his instincts for where the wind blows and the scent of money. Would it be fair to call him a "front man"? Albeit, a very successful one. But Jimmy Swaggert was very successful, too.

What's your take on the new Congressional Budget Office study, that the equivalent of 2.5 million full time jobs will be lost by 2024 as a result of the Affordable Care Act? Actually, the CBO thinks more full time jobs will be lost, but the lower number of hours worked will be equivalent to 2.5 million full time jobs.

Also, what are your thoughts about what the CBO's report says about the relationship between higher marginal tax rates and employment? From Reuters:

[i]According to the report, federal subsidies [for health insurance] can be substantial, particularly for lower-wage workers who receive more under the law's sliding income scale. But that also means the benefits can be phased out as a worker's income rises.

[b]"The phaseout effectively raises people's marginal tax rates (the tax rates applying to their last dollar of income), thus discouraging work,"[/b] CBO said.[/i]

To anyone who says "We're really not losing 2.5 million jobs, it just means that employment won't grow as fast", I challenge you to use the same reasoning the next time you complain about federal budget "cuts" to programs that grow, year after year.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;438068]What's your take on the new Congressional Budget Office study, that the equivalent of 2.5 million full time jobs will be lost by 2024 as a result of the Affordable Care Act? Actually, the CBO thinks more full time jobs will be lost, but the lower number of hours worked will be equivalent to 2.5 million full time jobs.[/QUOTE]Better yet, how about just once one of our leftists attempting to give a moral justification for their beliefs.

Don.

[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/02/04/the-medias-massive-revisions-on-cbo-obamacare-story/?hpid=z3[/url]

This link might not work, but the article can be found on Washington Post, February 2, 2014, by Erik Wemple

Furthermore, Greg Sargent of the Washington Post on the same day, reported: "Under questionin before the House Budget Committee from Democrat Representative Chris Van Hollen, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf confirmed that in reality, his report suggests that Obamacare will reduced unemployment."

[QUOTE=Tiny12;438068]What's your take on the new Congressional Budget Office study, that the equivalent of 2.5 million full time jobs will be lost by 2024 as a result of the Affordable Care Act? Actually, the CBO thinks more full time jobs will be lost, but the lower number of hours worked will be equivalent to 2.5 million full time jobs.

Also, what are your thoughts about what the CBO's report says about the relationship between higher marginal tax rates and employment? From Reuters:

[i]According to the report, federal subsidies [forhealthinsurance] can be substantial, particularly for lower-wage workers who receive more under the law's sliding income scale. But that also means the benefits can be phased out as a worker's income rises.

[b]"The phaseout effectively raises people's marginal tax rates (the tax rates applying to their last dollar of income), thus discouraging work,"[/b] CBO said.[/i]

To anyone who says "We're really not losing 2.5 million jobs, it just means that employment won't grow as fast", I challenge you to use the same reasoning the next time you complain about federal budget "cuts" to programs that grow, year after year.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=RevBS;438072]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/02/04/the-medias-massive-revisions-on-cbo-obamacare-story/?hpid=z3

This link might not work, but the article can be found on Washington Post, February 2, 2014, by Erik Wemple[/QUOTE]I read that this morning, it's weak. For example:

[I]Obamacare’s impact, the CBO concluded, would lessen the supply of labor by encouraging certain folks not to work: “The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in businesses’ demand for labor, so it will appear almost entirely as a reduction in labor force participation and in hours worked. . . .”[/I]

In other words, Obamacare discourages people from working.

Okay Reverend, if you're going to accept the logic in the Washington Post blog, then you should never criticize Libertarian-leaning politicians for "cuts" when they're actually just trying to slow the rate of growth in federal spending. Actually, I don't think that's something you're guilty of here, although others are.

[QUOTE=Rev BS;438072]Furthermore, Greg Sargent of the Washington Post on the same day, reported: "Under questionin before the House Budget Committee from Democrat Representative Chris Van Hollen, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf confirmed that in reality, his report suggests that Obamacare will reduced unemployment."[/QUOTE]

Yes, it's very possible that some people like Esten (see his post above) will give up looking for work because of Obamacare, and therefore no longer be counted as "unemployed." I wish I could find the CBO report, but can't. Anyway, listening to Van Hollen's testimony, he does say the short term effect will be to reduce unemployment because of the economic stimulus associated with Obamacare. However, in the longer term, Obamacare is a job destroyer.

I might quit my job and remain unemployed, or try to get a low-paying job. Not sure if I'll make enough to ever come back to BA, but those government subsidies I'll become eligible for are too juicy to resist.

[QUOTE=DonB;438069]Better yet, how about just once one of our leftists attempting to give a moral justification for their beliefs. Don.[/QUOTE]I know you have been around a long time, and I know you have more knowledge in your little finger that I have in my head. But I thought you might like this little contribution from me.

[URL]http://www.trueactivist.com/nurse-reveals-the-top-5-regrets-people-make-on-their-deathbed/[/URL]

The 5 regrets people have before they kick the bucket:

1. I wish I'd had the courage to live a life true to myself, not the life others expected of me.

2. I wish I didn't work so hard.

3. I wish I've had the courage to express my feelings.

4. I wish I've stay in touch with my friends.

5. I wish I've let myself be happier.

I am quite sure you are more than adequately covered, my friend. Myself, I am still working on all of them, except, for #2.

I think most of us can agree on this issue.

[URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zqQubSHRd8[/URL]