American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=BayBoy;442190]-- No caps on benefits.

-- Seniors don't have a donut hole to worry about on their prescription drugs (Pres. Bush's great idea).

-- No preexisting conditions can stop people from getting insurance.

-- Young people can ride their parents insurance until age 26.[/QUOTE]You could have had all that without Obamacare, and quite probably with lots of GOP support.

But let us not forget that the purpose of Obamacare was redistribution of wealth. Everything else was just the camouflage necessary to hide that reality.

Thanks,

Jax.

[QUOTE=BayBoy;442190]Whats not to like.[/QUOTE]The Individual Mandate, multiple additional taxes, private sector job losses, a huge new bureaucracy, government intervention into citizen's private lives, a drogue chute on the economy, unaddressed Health Justice reforms, escalating medical costs in general, and higher premiums for everyone who actually pays for their own insurance, to name just a few.

Thanks,

Jax.

[QUOTE=Jackson;442201]You could have had all that without Obamacare, and quite probably with lots of GOP support.

[/QUOTE]I haven't heard of any Republicans supporting all these tenants of the ACA. Maybe Ted Cruz, NOT.

Thanks,

Bboy.

I'll tell you one part of the ACA I don't agree with is that bullshit about letting "children" stay on the parents' policy until age 26. Come on. No wonder these past couple of generations have so much boomerang. I thought an adult was 18. Or 21. But not fucking 26.

I tell you what, I hope this Republican congress cuts higher education funding. I really do. There are so many bullshit colleges out there with bullshit programs it's ridiculous. And no, 80% of the population does not need a college degree. I have four and look how worthless I am. You could close half the colleges and kick out half the students and nothing would suffer. K-12 funding, we keep increasing it but students keep getting dumber. I don't know what's up with that. I guess it's just the long-term effect of the inverse relationship between intelligence and fecundity and I don't see much chance of reversing that. Put these dumb ass kids to work at 15 or 16 if they can't read or do math. Don't send them to college to take a bunch of non-credit 098 level "academic preparation and remediation." I taught at five colleges and I can tell you that "academic preparation" for college is [B]supposed to be fucking high school for Christ's sake[/B]. So if you don't know what six times seven is by the time you are sixteen, here is a fucking shovel, now bend over.

[QUOTE=Dickhead;442200]On the same day another and equal federal court found the exact opposite, and only as they pertained to the federal website. The states' websites were not covered by the ruling although they receive their subsidies from the feds. But just go ahead and cherry pick whatever supports your point of view.[/QUOTE]The case has been accepted by the Supreme Court so how is it cherry picking?

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;442205]The case has been accepted by the Supreme Court so how is it cherry picking?[/QUOTE]There were two Circuit Court cases. One went one way and one went the other way. You talked about the one and not the other. So that is cherry picking. I'm still sorting through SCOTUS's decision to grant [I]certiorari[/I] but I guess they are reviewing not the one they were expected to maybe review but the other one? The one that went against your position? Anyway it sounds like there is some interesting maneuvering going on. One article I read said the conservatives granted [I]cert[/I] to force Roberts to vote in favor of the ACA again. And SCOTUS proactively decided to review without either of the Circuit Court cases' parties requesting it? I don't think they "accepted" it; I think they went out and grabbed it. I might not have all that straight as I am still digesting it. Should be a fun decision. Sounds like one of those "definition of what 'is' is" kind of cases (in this case, what "state" is) and it seems the main issue will be legislative intent versus a literal reading.

But my state has an exchange anyway so nyaah.

[QUOTE=Jackson;442201]You could have had all that without Obamacare, and quite probably with lots of GOP support.[/QUOTE]Do you believe in unicorns too ?

The protections and benefits of the ACA would not have been possible without providing the revenue to support them. Romney learned that in MA and the ACA is based on Romney's template. It's ridiculous to think the party that said "Our goal is to make Obama a one-term president" and that made Waterloo analogies would have cooperated with Obama on any healthcare reform. GOP support, LOL !

Republicans had it in for Obama before Day 1
[URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/republicans-had-it-in-for-obama-before-day-1/2012/08/10/0c96c7c8-e31f-11e1-ae7f-d2a13e249eb2_blog.html[/URL]

[QUOTE]But let us not forget that the purpose of Obamacare was redistribution of wealth. Everything else was just the camouflage necessary to hide that reality.[/QUOTE]Wrong again. The purpose of the Affordable Care Act was reform of the healthcare system to achieve multiple objectives:
(i) Ban denials of insurance for pre-existing conditions.
(ii) Ban coverage cancellations when people get sick.
(iii) Ban lifetime limits on medical care.
(iv) Expand access to affordable healthcare insurance.
(v) Extend the life of Medicare.
(vi) Reduce the prescription drug coverage gap (donut hole) in Medicare Part D.
(vii) Require insurance companies to spend the majority of health insurance premiums on medical care, not on profits and overhead.
... and others.

Redistribution was a [I]means[/I] to help accomplish some of these objectives. As it should have been.

[QUOTE=Dickhead;442204]I'll tell you one part of the ACA I don't agree with is that bullshit about letting "children" stay on the parents' policy until age 26. Come on. No wonder these past couple of generations have so much boomerang. I thought an adult was 18. Or 21. But not fucking 26.[/QUOTE]But look at the math. Without this provision, millions of young adults would have to get insurance policies on their own (or be subject to the tax penalty). And their typically low incomes would make them eligible for subsidies. That would be a big increase in required subsidies, making the entire system more expensive. Letting them stay on their parent's policies avoids this and keeps costs down. It also eases the financial burden for those seeking higher education or starting their careers. College students have enough to worry about with student debt. Making the path to higher education a little easier is a good thing, because for most people a college degree is the ticket to a high paying job.

I'm all for cutting wasteful spending which you cited examples of. But this provision of the ACA is good policy for a number of reasons.

[QUOTE=Esten;442208]It's ridiculous to think the party that said "Our goal is to make Obama a one-term president" and...[/QUOTE]Your statement is completely disenginious given that you know that it is the goal of [U]EVERY[/U] party out of power to make the sitting president "a one-term president". That's why they run opponents against them at every election, to make them "a one-term president". Get it?

[QUOTE=Esten;442208]...that made Waterloo analogies would have cooperated with Obama on any healthcare reform. GOP support, LOL ![/QUOTE]I guess we'll never know because the Dems never gave the Republicans an opportunity to coouperate, instead choosing to ram Obamacare up the country's ass all by themselves.

[QUOTE=Esten;442222]Without this provision, millions of young adults would have to get insurance policies on their own[/QUOTE]Right, that's my point. They need to be kicked out of the nest much sooner than has been happening in the last generation or so. It's a waste. Anybody who is still in school at age 26 is either screwing the pooch or already has an advanced degree they can make money with and so they can afford to pay for their own insurance. It ain't even that expensive at that age.

Also, they are being subsidized either way. One way the parents' employers and the other people in the parents' pool subsidize them and the other way the government does. And at least the second way they have to grow up and figure out how to navigate the system, and pay their share of the bill, and so forth. The way it is now, they just think it's the Health Insurance Fairy or something like that.

So saying that millions of young adults will have to get policies on their own is like saying that millions of young adults will have to renew their own driver's licenses and mow their own lawns and shit.

[QUOTE=Dickhead;442237]Right, that's my point. They need to be kicked out of the nest much sooner than has been happening in the last generation or so. It's a waste. Anybody who is still in school at age 26 is either screwing the pooch or already has an advanced degree they can make money with and so they can afford to pay for their own insurance. It ain't even that expensive at that age.

[/QUOTE]I disagree with the blanket age 26 rule of thumb totally.

I went back to school at 26 and have made my living off the degrees I earned.

My girlfriend's son is a veteran and is at UCI currently working his ass off. Although his benefit package is jaw dropping. California gives him scholarship money along with the GI Bill money.

One size does not fit all.

[QUOTE=Esten;442222]College students have enough to worry about with student debt.[/QUOTE]Here, let me fix that for you: No more student loans for liberal arts degrees.

In one motion we can reduce the federal budget deficit, reinvigorate academia by introducing them to the concept of competition, AND save millions of potential "Educated Idiots" from the angst of paying off student loans acquired in the pursuit of worthless degrees.

Thanks,

Jax.

[QUOTE=BigBossMan;442243]I disagree with the blanket age 26 rule of thumb totally. I went back to school at 26 and have made my living off the degrees I earned.[/QUOTE]Right, and before you were 26 and went to school, you were working and either covered by your employer's plan or paying for it yourself or just plain were not covered. I went back to school at age 31 but before that I wasn't sucking on mommy and daddy's tit until I was 26. That's what [B]I'm[/B] referring to.

[QUOTE=Jackson;442245]Here, let me fix that for you: No more student loans for liberal arts degrees.

In one motion we can reduce the federal budget deficit, reinvigorate academia by introducing them to the concept of competition, AND save millions of potential "Educated Idiots" from the angst of paying off student loans acquired in the pursuit of worthless degrees.

Thanks,

Jax.[/QUOTE]Please note that your hero Reagan majored in sociology.

It's hard to believe but Jackson is actually 100% on point with this one.

[QUOTE=Jackson;442245]Here, let me fix that for you: No more student loans for liberal arts degrees.

In one motion we can reduce the federal budget deficit, reinvigorate academia by introducing them to the concept of competition, AND save millions of potential "Educated Idiots" from the angst of paying off student loans acquired in the pursuit of worthless degrees.

Thanks,

Jax.[/QUOTE]

I was a liberal arts or more precisely social science major but I also took a lot of business classes. The result was that I did not need loans but took them anyway and invested them in the stock market. After graduation I refinanced them all at 2.9% (and the interest was tax deductible "above the line"). That all worked out really well. Eventually I paid them all off just because I got tired of looking at them, but I probably should have stretched them out longer.

So part of the deal on that is that there [B]is[/B] means testing for student loans. But, they don't count the equity in your house or the balances in your retirement accounts as "means." That means 1) the student loan system is tilted in favor of homeowners and 2) assholes like me who had quite a bit in retirement accounts could still get subsidized loans. #2 is somewhat less of a factor now because the subsidies and deferral periods have been tightened, but #1 is still way true and is not right. Money is money. Just because little Johnny's dad has his money in a taxable brokerage account and little Suzy's dad has his money in an IRA, does not mean little Suzy should get more financial aid. But it does. Similarly if Johnny's dad rents and Suzy's dad owns, Suzy will get more aid even if both live in identical houses.

Not only did I get federal subsidies for these unneeded loans that I used to gamble in the stock market, but all but the first semester of my worthless liberal arts education, which I stretched out for seven years, was 100% paid for by my state's taxpayers. Fortunately in the process of getting the worthless liberal arts degree, the tax classes taught me exactly how to fuck the system.

So I would say I got more for my money out of the business classes than I did out of the liberal arts classes, but that wouldn't be true because none of it was my money!

The means testing for federal programs is all over the place and it should be coordinated. You see silly things like strict income limits to take the savings bond interest exclusion (for tuition), which is chump change, and then they turn around and give away the farm in the federal financial aid system.

I would like to see a minimum SAT or ACT score for financial aid eligibility. We should help poor people go to college, not stupid ones.

[QUOTE=Jackson;442245]Here, let me fix that for you: No more student loans for liberal arts degrees.

In one motion we can reduce the federal budget deficit, reinvigorate academia by introducing them to the concept of competition, AND save millions of potential "Educated Idiots" from the angst of paying off student loans acquired in the pursuit of worthless degrees.[/QUOTE]Your attack on liberal arts degrees didn't fix anything.

If you can demonstrate these degrees (both undergraduate and graduate combined) are a net loss in the student loan program, I'll agree your idea would reduce the federal deficit. You have to look at both though because the undergraduate is needed to get to the graduate degree. On balance though, the federal government makes a healthy profit on student loans. In 2013 there was a projected record $50-billion profit.

Guess what, on average (folks like Dickhead aside) those "Educated Idiots" still make more $ than someone without a college degree. Average starting salaries are around $40K. Amazingly, getting even more liberal arts education (a graduate degree) earns them even more ! They'll decide the value of their degree for themselves, thank you. And also, for some people money is not the sole reason they pursue higher education.

[QUOTE=Dickhead;442237]Right, that's my point. They need to be kicked out of the nest much sooner than has been happening in the last generation or so. It's a waste. Anybody who is still in school at age 26 is either screwing the pooch or already has an advanced degree they can make money with and so they can afford to pay for their own insurance. It ain't even that expensive at that age.

Also, they are being subsidized either way. One way the parents' employers and the other people in the parents' pool subsidize them and the other way the government does. And at least the second way they have to grow up and figure out how to navigate the system, and pay their share of the bill, and so forth. The way it is now, they just think it's the Health Insurance Fairy or something like that.[/QUOTE]I'm talking about the financial modeling of the healthcare law. You seem focused on a moral issue of when young adults should become self-sufficient. That's a different debate.

The 18-26 age group is a low-income group. As you noted it's a choice between the parent (and their employer) paying premiums, or the government providing subsidies. I am sure the architects of the ACA did the math and determined the provision would provide a net lower public burden. The point is to keep the public cost down. I am searching for the CBO scoring on this provision.

[QUOTE=Esten;442263]II am sure the architects of the ACA did the math and determined the provision would provide a net lower public burden.[/QUOTE]Well, Pollyanna, I have [B]actually extensively studied the law and the entire legislative process behind it[/B], and in particular have studied the math and the assumptions behind it. Imagine that. No such math was done, and to be quite honest with you, I wouldn't put much stock in their math if they had. How great was the math that produced the approximately 5000% marginal tax rate on the 45,961st (for a single person in 2014 and depending on age) dollar of income? The same idiots who did that math would have done this other math that you imagine took place, right? Aren't those the same idiots that set up the system I am so blatantly manipulating because the math behind it is so flawed?

I am a liberal too but you are just so completely gullible it's ludicrous. And it's not a [B]moral[/B] issue as to when young people should become self-sufficient. It's an [B]economic[/B] issue. It should be obvious by now that I have no morals.

[QUOTE=Jackson;442245] save millions of potential "Educated Idiots" from the angst of paying off student loans acquired in the pursuit of worthless degrees.[/QUOTE]A truly well-educated idiot would not have any angst about paying off these loans because they would know about the "Income Contingent Repayment Plan" and the "Public Service Loan Forgiveness" program. A judicious manipulation of these two fine provisions will largely eliminate the need to pay off these annoying loans (although of course the other taxpayers will have to pay them off).

Jackson, as pissed off as you are about these student loan programs, I guarantee you that you would shit enough bricks to build an outhouse if you saw the theoretical example I put together of how to get a completely unnecessary graduate degree and never pay back a cent of the loan, completely legally, and walk away with about $50k after you "paid" for school. I think I showed that puppy to Daddy Rulz. And now that there are all these on-line programs, you could do it from the French Riviera if you wanted to.

[QUOTE=Esten;442262]Your attack on liberal arts degrees didn't fix anything.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Dickhead;442265]Jackson, as pissed off as you are about these student loan programs...[/QUOTE]Gentlemen,

I didn't attack liberal arts degrees, and I'm not pissed off about student loan programs in general.

I just believe...

1. That Academia has become fat and happy selling an over-priced product of questionable value to a group of consumers who are being sold on the payment, not the price, and...

2. Most liberal arts degrees represent a notoriously bad return on investment., and...

3. That the American taxpayer should stop enabling these economically bad decisions by providing 100% financing.

Nevertheless, if a consumer of education services wants to pay for their own economically worthless liberal degree, then I say let them do it.

Thanks,

Jax.

PS: Yes, there should be an exception for individuals who aspire to become public school teachers.

[QUOTE=Esten;442262]Guess what, on average (folks like Dickhead aside) those "Educated Idiots" still make more $ than someone without a college degree.[/QUOTE]Or maybe the degree didn't have anything to do with it, and instead it's just that the kind of person who can manage to overcome the awesome intellectual challenges of a liberal arts degree is also the kind of person who can perform a $40k per year job.

Get it?

[QUOTE=Esten;442262]And also, for some people money is not the sole reason they pursue higher education.[/QUOTE]Then let them pay for their own fucking higher [STRIKE]entertainment[/STRIKE] education.

Since I have both liberal arts degrees and non liberal arts degrees, and since I've done some research in that regard, I'll say a few things. We took a look at return on investment on various degrees when I was in a course called Social Stratification (I minored in Sociology because I admired Reagan so much). One of the things we found was that there were significant socioeconomic differences among the student pools across these majors. That is a fancy way of saying that the students who tended to major in the most lucrative subjects tended to also be from higher socioeconomic backgrounds. So what that does is make it hard to conclude that the major, rather than class distinctions, was the reason for the lower eventual wages earned by some of the liberal arts, social science, education, etc. majors as compared to business or STEM fields. My guess is it's some of both.

All the joking aside about the taxpayers paying for my degrees (the first three anyway), I never really tried to make money with the liberal arts degree but the business grad schools loved the fact I had it, so I got into a better school and got a better financial aid package and assistantship than I would have if I'd had a business undergrad. If I'd moved forward with just the liberal arts bachelor's, I doubt I would have been better off than I was before, job-wise, but then again, I already had an overpaid government job when I started the educational process.

I will also say that when I taught grad school, my students who had liberal arts or humanities undergraduates were more successful than the ones who had both undergrad and grad business degrees. That was measured objectively by our surveys that followed our MBA graduates at 5 and 10 year intervals. We also measured the GPA performance of our students by undergrad majors and while I don't remember the whole distribution, I do remember that the philosophy majors were the highest.

And boy are there a lot of worthless MBA programs out there! Loans are harder to get for grad school now, but if it's a state school it's being subsidized anyway, so it's still a waste. One place I taught at had an entire MBA program where it was just sitting side by side with the undergrads and writing an extra paper or some such. It wasn't accredited by the AACSB so no one took it seriously, but it was regionally accredited so the students could get financial aid through the state.

Here is another deep-seated political inequity in the US financial aid system: Students are expected to contribute 50% of their available[I] income[/I] towards higher education expenses, but only 20% of their available [I]assets[/I]. That right there tilts the playing field very sharply towards the ruling class, since asset inequality is much more pronounced (and pernicious) than income inequality. That's on top of what I said earlier about houses and retirement assets allegedly not being "available." There are way fewer loopholes regarding income. Almost none, in fact.

[QUOTE=Dickhead;442264]Well, Pollyanna, I have [B]actually extensively studied the law and the entire legislative process behind it[/B], and in particular have studied the math and the assumptions behind it. Imagine that. No such math was done, and to be quite honest with you, I wouldn't put much stock in their math if they had. How great was the math that produced the approximately 5000% marginal tax rate on the 45,961st (for a single person in 2014 and depending on age) dollar of income? The same idiots who did that math would have done this other math that you imagine took place, right? Aren't those the same idiots that set up the system I am so blatantly manipulating because the math behind it is so flawed?[/QUOTE]Hey Dickhead, posting in bold letters that you have extensive knowledge, and that other people are idiots, does not constitute an intelligent argument.

The ACA provision allowing dependents up to age 26 to stay on their parents plan is good economic policy for a couple reasons. The first I've mentioned, is that it shifts the cost of insuring this low-income demographic away from the government subsidies. Second, it adds a large group of generally healthy young adults to insurance pools, making those pools better able to support the sick people in the pools and/or keep premiums lower. In fact this was one of several Republican ideas in the Affordable Care Act. It was in the Republican health reform bill in 2009, and again in the Hatch/Coburn/Burr proposal in January 2014. Pretty much every healthcare reform proposal out there contained this provision.

So again, please explain to us why this provision is bad economic policy. Let's see if you can provide a substantive economic argument.

[QUOTE]Third, the composition of an insurance pool is one of the key determinants of its cost. If a pool has a lot of healthy members, its costs will be lower. The Republican plan requires insurers to keep dependents up to age 26 on their parents' insurance. Young people who have recently graduated are the largest single population of uninsured, and they are generally healthy. Keeping them in the insurance pools does likely drive the cost down, so this is the one element of the Republican plan that actually works. [/QUOTE][URL]http://weiwentg.blogspot.com/2009/11/cbo-score-of-republican-reform-bill.html[/URL]

[QUOTE]Under the plan, insurances companies would not be able to impose lifetime limits on patients and would be required to allow dependent coverage up to the age of 26, as ObamaCare currently does. [/QUOTE][URL]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/27/senate-republicans-pitch-obamacare-alternative-on-eve-presidential-address/[/URL]

[QUOTE=Dickhead;442264]Well, Pollyanna, I have [B]actually extensively studied the law and the entire legislative process behind it[/B], and in particular have studied the math and the assumptions behind it. Imagine that. No such math was done, and to be quite honest with you, I wouldn't put much stock in their math if they had. How great was the math that produced the approximately 5000% marginal tax rate on the 45,961st (for a single person in 2014 and depending on age) dollar of income? The same idiots who did that math would have done this other math that you imagine took place, right? Aren't those the same idiots that set up the system I am so blatantly manipulating because the math behind it is so flawed?
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Esten;442286]Hey Dickhead, posting in bold letters that you have extensive knowledge, and that other people are idiots, does not constitute an intelligent argument.[/QUOTE]Read his posts Esten, he does have extensive knowledge of the math and assumptions behind it. He is a living, breathing example of how the Obama administration screwed up big time when it crammed the ACA down Congress' throat. The feds should pay Dickhead about $3 million a year to find loopholes in proposed legislation that people and companies will take advantage of. That would save taxpayers orders of magnitude more than his salary. And avoid more Nancy Pelosi "we have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it" bull shit.

Here is Mike Enzi s speech to the Heritage foundation a couple of months before the gang of six stopped negotiating on health care. Tell me if you guys see anything that looks familiar. Fitting it was at heritage.

[URL]http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/conservative-principles-of-health-care-reform-the-road-ahead[/URL]

One, it shows that most republican complaints about the law are bullshit. The thing is largely structured around ideas from heritage, CATO, and MIT. On the other hand, if the democrats couldn't get a deal done because of tort reform and dropping the employer tax exception, then that is equally as full of shit. The employer tax exemption is regressive anyway, why the fuck they wouldn't go along with getting rid of that baffles me. But still... I think there are 6 bullet points in that speech, and the law reflect 5 of them.

But the republicans... With all there new found power, what are they going to do. They are going to repeal the medical device tax (with plenty of eager democratic help), one of the only measures to control cost in the bill. And really it should be higher, we have a huge degree of over investment in medical technology, because the system is driven by profit. Thats great for the system in many ways, but taxes are the only way to correct that mal-investment without going to a public system.

The numbers don't lie, we were paying more and getting less out than other industrialized nation. Sure MD Anderson is awesome if my balls are falling off from Cancer, but generally, we were (and mostly still are) shitting the bed.

Obamacare has a bunch of flaws, how about selling insurance across state lines? Seems to work for cars. But the idea that it is what created this dumpster fire of a system is just wrong. And healthcare inflation has come down... Still way above CPI.... But its better.

Your points are well taken though Dickhead, especially some of the ways the subsidies are structured. But what do you think about taking that level analysis and applying it to hospitals (and to a lesser extent doctors). They are sucking up money like a vacuum. Im not saying your other points are incorrect (at least not a lot of them) but Id be interested to hear what you think.


To me it alot of it comes back to the food, the fucking shit we eat kills us. And until we get that under control (stop subsidizing corn to start with) its not going to make a damn bit of difference how many young healthy people buy insurance.

[QUOTE=Jhskiier;442288]
To me it all comes back to the food, the fucking shit we eat kills us. And until we get that under control (stop subsidizing corn to start with) its not going to make a damn bit of difference how many young healthy people buy insurance.
[/QUOTE]Corn. Now I understand. It's the mother fucking corn that's killing us. And it's everywhere. Fucking pinko commie liberals refine the shit and put it in their gas tanks. The fucking Mexicans even put it in their tortillas. We've got to get rid of the corn.

Its a little tongue and cheek.... But read the omnivores dilemna.

[URL]http://www.amazon.com/The-Omnivores-Dilemma-Natural-History/dp/0143038583[/URL]

25% of medicare costs go to heart disease, and it is the largest killer in the country. So its a real thing. Im not going to hijack the discussion going into it.

But seriously... You put bad gas in your car your going to fuck up the engine.

And the repair bill is just going to keep going up.

[QUOTE=Jhskiier;442288]Here is Mike Enzi s speech to the Heritage foundation a couple of months before the gang of six stopped negotiating on health care. Tell me if you guys see anything that looks familiar. Fitting it was at heritage.

[URL]http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/conservative-principles-of-health-care-reform-the-road-ahead[/URL]

One, it shows that most republican complaints about the law are bullshit. The thing is largely structured around ideas from heritage, CATO, and MIT. On the other hand, if the democrats couldn't get a deal done because of tort reform and dropping the employer tax exception, then that is equally as full of shit. The employer tax exemption is regressive anyway, why the fuck they wouldn't go along with getting rid of that baffles me. But still... I think there are 6 bullet points in that speech, and the law reflect 5 of them.

But the republicans... With all there new found power, what are they going to do. They are going to repeal the medical device tax (with plenty of eager democratic help), one of the only measures to control cost in the bill. And really it should be higher, we have a huge degree of over investment in medical technology, because the system is driven by profit. Thats great for the system in many ways, but taxes are the only way to correct that mal-investment without going to a public system.

The numbers don't lie, we were paying more and getting less out than other industrialized nation. Sure MD Anderson is awesome if my balls are falling off from Cancer, but generally, we were (and mostly still are) shitting the bed.

Obamacare has a bunch of flaws, how about selling insurance across state lines? Seems to work for cars. But the idea that it is what created this dumpster fire of a system is just wrong. And healthcare inflation has come down... Still way above CPI.... But its better.

Your points are well taken though Dickhead, especially some of the ways the subsidies are structured. But what do you think about taking that level analysis and applying it to hospitals (and to a lesser extent doctors). They are sucking up money like a vacuum. Im not saying your other points are incorrect (at least not a lot of them) but Id be interested to hear what you think.


To me it alot of it comes back to the food, the fucking shit we eat kills us. And until we get that under control (stop subsidizing corn to start with) its not going to make a damn bit of difference how many young healthy people buy insurance.[/QUOTE]You are what you eat!

Highest standard of living in the world means that on the AP forum, we cannot criticize our American lifestyle. It is traitorous, it is blasphemy. Carbohydrates equals sugar, processed food equals preservatives and chemicals. Gigantic portions equals gluttony. America equals sumo wrestlers.

Eating everything in sight in actually good, variety is good. But Moderation is the key. And eat more vegetables & fruits than meat & bread, pasta, potatoes, etc. But for many, that is Un -American. And drink lots of water, of course. Also Un-American.

[QUOTE=RevBS;442292]You are what you eat![/QUOTE]I must be a real pussy then.

Allowing children to stay on their parents' policies up to age 26 is discriminatory against those who don't have parents with health insurance. One large class that could be used as an example is kids aging out of the foster care system. Adding more healthy people to the Obamacare pool makes way more sense than adding them to employer health plans. That is just more people to be covered under those plans so they will be subsidized by the employees who don't have children. That is less fair than an overall government subsidy. The difference is that the current measure increases a previously finite pool by adding a new class to it, whereas covering these "semi-adults" under Obamacare would decrease the morbidity of non-finite (though not infinite) pool. This is a consideration in designing a tax, and the route of covering that class under employers' plans is less effective of a tax (subsidies are just taxes).

Esten seems to think this decision was analyzed. Go back and look at the committee history, Esten. They never did any economic analysis on this. Ever. At all. This idea was put in at the very beginning to draw bi-partisan support. Of course, you are just talking out your ass and I've actually read all that stuff. I'm surprised you can't see that this provision of the ACA is just a "rich daddy" provision. I don't see why Sturdevant von Noseinair IV should have more health insurance options just cuz his daddy's got a job and LeRon Moseley's daddy's doing a nickel upstate. Get the picture?

[QUOTE=RevBS;442292]You are what you eat!

Highest standard of living in the world means that on the AP forum, we cannot criticize our American lifestyle. It is traitorous, it is blasphemy. Carbohydrates equals sugar, processed food equals preservatives and chemicals. Gigantic portions equals gluttony. America equals sumo wrestlers.

Eating everything in sight in actually good, variety is good. But Moderation is the key. And eat more vegetables & fruits than meat & bread, pasta, potatoes, etc. But for many, that is Un -American. And drink lots of water, of course. Also Un-American.[/QUOTE]Highest standard of living in the world is Singapore, Kuwait, UEA, Netherlands, Sweden.

Interestingly, by measures of happiness, South America is the happiest place in the world. Who would have thought?

[QUOTE=Dickhead;442299]I must be a real pussy then.[/QUOTE]Just look in the mirror, dude.

Who is the party obsessed with race, gender, sexual persuasion? Why the Democrats of course.

Mia Love, a black woman, was elected to the House of Representatives from Utah. In an interview with CNN after congratulating Ms. Love on her election victory the hosts launched into a diatribe on how she was elected due to her being Black and Female, which did not hold much water since the black population of Utah according to the 2010 census was 2.3%. Ms. Love shoved it up their ass in a very forcefully, way to go Mia. What was Ms. Loves sin? She was a Republican. See the attached clip.

[URL]http://youtu.be/VaxOkGAWbmY[/URL]

Here are the demographics for Utah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Utah


And how about the NAACP totally ignoring both Tim Scott and Mia Love? You would think they would be lauding these two's accomplishments but no not a word. Why because they are Republicans and their accomplishments don't count.

I am sure our liberal friends who have been defending ObamaCare / ACA have heard the audio/video clips on the lack of transparency in the bill is what insured it would be enacted as well as calling the American voters "stupid". While he might have something on the stupid side I don't think these comments will endear him to Obama or the Democrats and will hand the Republicans a great club to strike down this horrible piece of legislation.

It is sort of hard to refute the video but I am sure Esten will try.

[URL]http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/09/obamacare-architect-lack-of-transparency-was-key-because-stupidity-of-the-american-voter-would-have-killed-obamacare/[/URL]

Got this from a friend and decided to post for all to enjoy.

COL. ROBERT F. CUNNINGHAM and PATRICK RISHOR.

The Gilmer Mirror a Northeast Texas Newspaper.

Quit trashing Obama's accomplishments. He has done more than any other President before him.

Here is a list of his impressive accomplishments:

1. First President to be photographed smoking a joint.

2. First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner.

3. First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.

4. First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States .

5. First President to violate the War Powers Act.

6. First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

7. First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.

8. First President to spend a trillion dollars on "shovel-ready" jobs when there was no such thing as "shovel-ready" jobs.

9. First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.

10. First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.

11. First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S.including those with criminal convictions.

12. First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.

13. First President to tell a CEO of a major corporation (Chrysler) to resign.

14. First President to terminate America ’s ability to put a man in space.

15. First President to cancel the National Day of Prayer and to say that America is no longer a Christian nation.

16. First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.

17. First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.

18. First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke out on the reasons for their rate increases.

19. First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory.

20. First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN).

21. First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.

22. First President to actively try to bankrupt an American industry (coal).

23. First President to fire an inspector general of AmeriCorps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.

24. First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office.

25. First President to surround himself with radical left wing anarchists.

26. First President to golf more than 150 separate times in his five years in office.

27. First President to hide his birth, medical, educational and travel records.

28. First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.

29. First President to go on multiple "global apology tours" and concurrent "insult our friends" tours.

30. First President to go on over 17 lavish vacations, in addition to date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for > his friends paid for by the taxpayers.

31. First President to have personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.

32. First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.

33. First President to fly in a personal trainer from Chicago at least once a week at taxpayer expense.

34. First President to repeat the Quran and tell us the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.

35. First President to side with a foreign nation over one of the American 50 states ( Mexico vs Arizona ).

36. First President to tell the military men and women that they should pay for their own private insurance because they "volunteered to go to war and knew the consequences”.

37. Then he was the First President to tell the members of the military that THEY were UNPATRIOTIC for balking at the last suggestion.

It's hard to comprehend all this guy has gotten away with. Any other president would have been impeached!

What in God's name is wrong with our government that they allow this guy carte blanch.

It absolutely boggles the mind!

I feel much better now. I had been under the impression he hadn't been doing ANYTHING!!

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;442306]Who is the party obsessed with race, gender, sexual persuasion? Why the Democrats of course.

Mia Love, a black woman, was elected to the House of Representatives from Utah. In an interview with CNN after congratulating Ms. Love on her election victory the hosts launched into a diatribe on how she was elected due to her being Black and Female, which did not hold much water since the black population of Utah according to the 2010 census was 2.3%. Ms. Love shoved it up their ass in a very forcefully, way to go Mia. What was Ms. Loves sin? She was a Republican. See the attached clip.

[URL]http://youtu.be/VaxOkGAWbmY[/URL]

Here are the demographics for Utah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Utah


And how about the NAACP totally ignoring both Tim Scott and Mia Love? You would think they would be lauding these two's accomplishments but no not a word. Why because they are Republicans and their accomplishments don't count.[/QUOTE]Ive seen this movie before.... Video below.

[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRNCpD3xhsY[/URL]

[QUOTE=Jhskiier;442309]Ive seen this movie before.... Video below.

[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRNCpD3xhsY[/URL][/QUOTE]Typical liberal response, post a cartoon and let's all live in make believe land. Liberals stories always begin with "Once upon a time..." and end with "lived happily ever after"

Can't you do better than that.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;442311]Typical liberal response, post a cartoon and let's all live in make believe land. Liberals stories always begin with "Once upon a time..." and end with "lived happily ever after"

Can't you do better than that.[/QUOTE]No Doppelganger. All Republicans are white racists who believe they're superior to other people. Or maybe all white people are racists. Anyway, get with the program.

I haven't figured out whether Jhskiier is incredibly good with irony, or whether he fits your stereotype:

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;442306]Who is the party obsessed with race, gender, sexual persuasion? Why the Democrats of course.
[/QUOTE]

Good to see Doppelganger getting it out of his system.... There, there, Doppel. I never realized he was so concerned about who the NAACP recognizes ! Oh wait, he's just regurgitating tripe from Fox News. But glad he feels better.

[QUOTE=Jhskiier;442309]Ive seen this movie before.... Video below.

[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRNCpD3xhsY[/URL][/QUOTE]LOL !!! Where the HECK did you pull up that from ? Oh man, too funny.

Dickhead, I was looking forward to your answer on the age 26 dependent provision and I'm disappointed. Your arguments are mostly around discrimination and fairness, but I thought you said it was an economic issue. You argue it would have been [I]better[/I] to put young adults in the "Obamacare" pool; in itself that certainly would make that pool financially stronger, but you have to account for the government subsidies for those policies. In the end, the current system pulls in more revenue from parents and employers, reducing the need to raise that revenue elsewhere (e.g., taxes) to fund more subsidies in the "Obamacare" pool. I certainly haven't done nor am capable of doing an analysis to compare. You may well have done the analysis to support your position, but you haven't convinced me.

What I'm certainly not convinced of is that the provision is bad economic policy, there are studies coming out demonstrating favorable cost effects. Last but not least, I absolutely do not believe for a second that you have been privy to every document and analysis that went into the ACA. Just because you didn't see an analysis of the provision does not mean it was never done. Unless you were in the inner circles at the DHHS or the CBO, which I doubt.

The Affordable Care Act Reduces Emergency Department Use By Young Adults: Evidence From Three States
[URL]http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/33/9/1648.abstract[/URL]