Esten calling fiction a fact and vice versa is easy for him because he is unable to tell the difference between the two.
Tres3.
Printable View
Esten calling fiction a fact and vice versa is easy for him because he is unable to tell the difference between the two.
Tres3.
[QUOTE=Tres3;438796]Esten calling fiction a fact and vice versa is easy for him because he is unable to tell the difference between the two.
Tres3.[/QUOTE]So, true. And that poor, dumb, PHD sob that Esten quoted doesn't realize the premium increase freight train that is headed his way. $62 teaser premium this year. Next year, the portion of the premium he pays will rise to about $200 due to the insurance surcharge and the 20% projected premium increase. Of course, that premium increase is based upon the full premium, not the subsidized amount. That $200 2014 premium is assuming his salary stays in the 20 k range. If he makes a decent living, his premiums will go to around $800 month. Yeah, he is much better off.
The best thing about Obamacare is that it ensures the next president will not be a Democrat.
[QUOTE=Tres3;438796]Esten calling fiction a fact and vice versa is easy for him because he is unable to tell the difference between the two.
Tres3.[/QUOTE]Actually, it's easy for him.
If the information being offered supports his position, then it's a fact.
It the information contradicts his position, then it's fiction.
Thanks,
Jax.
[QUOTE=Esten;438782]Letter from a "staunch Republican"
This guy actually wrote Obama, and they put his letter on the whitehouse website. You've got to think that every Republican who has benefitted from the new law, knows what a lie all the right wing emotional attacks are.[/QUOTE]Show me a letter like that from somebody who isn't getting a subsidy.
[QUOTE=Jackson;438804]Show me a letter like that from somebody who isn't getting a subsidy.[/QUOTE]Jackson, why would I do that? That's how the law works, making healthcare insurance more affordable for low income families via subsidies / tax credits.
Got to love Dccpa's post, calling a Republican a "dumb sob" and then predicting the next president will (in effect) be a Republican. Classic. As far as his numbers, there is no way at this point to accurately project the rate of future premium increases, but even his dubious higher number is a much better deal than what that "dumb sob" had before ACA.
The provision to grandfather health plans goes back to 2010, though if Doppel and Punter want to get technical, no it was not in the original ACA law itself. No new law of that scope has all the regulations established and finalized upon passage. The grandfather provision was in the regulations issued a few months after the law passed. Still in 2010. It's a pointless distinction that doesn't change the substance of my argument, and that the insurance companies themselves don't even bother to make when they explain grandfathered plans. Since some of you are so sure that the insurance companies had no choice whatsoever, maybe it's time for a "LIV Challenge".
[QUOTE=Esten;438806]Jackson, why would I do that? That's how the law works, making healthcare insurance more affordable for low income families via subsidies / tax credits.
Got to love Dccpa's post, calling a Republican a "dumb sob" and then predicting the next president will (in effect) be a Republican. Classic. As far as his numbers, there is no way at this point to accurately project the rate of future premium increases, but even his dubious higher number is a much better deal than what that "dumb sob" had before ACA.
The provision to grandfather health plans goes back to 2010, though if Doppel and Punter want to get technical, no it was not in the original ACA law itself. No new law of that scope has all the regulations established and finalized upon passage. The grandfather provision was in the regulations issued a few months after the law passed. Still in 2010. It's a pointless distinction that doesn't change the substance of my argument, and that the insurance companies themselves don't even bother to make when they explain grandfathered plans. Since some of you are so sure that the insurance companies had no choice whatsoever, maybe it's time for a "LIV Challenge".[/QUOTE]Esten, there is no "Grandfather" clause nor subsequent "regulations" beyond the cynical attempt by Obama waving his not so magic wand and the Democrats to shift blame from themselves to the state insurance commissioner and / or the insurance companies who are following the law as written.
A pathetic shell game by Obama in a cynical attempt to save Democrats during the mid-term elections of 2014. With any luck there the Republicans will win the senate and there will be enough scared Democrats to insure Obama's Veto pen has no ink.
[QUOTE=Jackson;438804]Show me a letter like that from somebody who isn't getting a subsidy.[/QUOTE]Mongers-.
Lets make sure we all understand Jackson's position on healthcare subsidies:
-It IS acceptable for Jackson himself to benefit from subsidized health insurance / healthcare in Argentina (a country he is NOT a citizen of).
- It is NOT acceptable for US citizens to benefit from subsidized health insurance / healthcare in the USA.
Thanks,
ElAlamoPalermo (formerly Rock Harders).
[QUOTE=ElAlamoPalermo;438865]Mongers-.
Lets make sure we all understand Jackson's position on healthcare subsidies:
-It IS acceptable for Jackson himself to benefit from subsidized health insurance / healthcare in Argentina (a country he is NOT a citizen of).
- It is NOT acceptable for US citizens to benefit from subsidized health insurance / healthcare in the USA.
Thanks,
ElAlamoPalermo (formerly Rock Harders).[/QUOTE]This is not a good comparison when you look at the service here in Argentina compared to the states. In the states they do what is needed and fairly quickly and efficiently (at least in my past experiences) In Argentina if you are receiving subsidized medical care the only people who get rapid medical attention are those in danger of dieing, and there are times that even those patients (those who are dieing but could be saved) don't get the rapid attention they need.
I have been to the Aleman Hospital about four times. I waited no more than half an hour to see the doctor.
[QUOTE=Gandolf50;438866]This is not a good comparison when you look at the service here in Argentina compared to the states. In the states they do what is needed and fairly quickly and efficiently (at least in my past experiences) In Argentina if you are receiving subsidized medical care the only people who get rapid medical attention are those in danger of dieing, and there are times that even those patients (those who are dieing but could be saved) don't get the rapid attention they need.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;438869]I have been to the Aleman Hospital about four times. I waited no more than half an hour to see the doctor.[/QUOTE]
I don't understand your point. Aleman is a private hospital, not a public hospital.
Do you or ElAlamoPalermo remember that Jackson said he'd support implementation of the Argentine health care system in the USA? He also said that would have a snowball's chance in hell of happening because USA Politicians don't have the backbone to make it happen.
While Argentina doesn't have the resources of a first world country, Hong Kong has a very similar system, that encompasses public and private sectors. It spends 5% of GDP on health expenditures. With Obamacare we're headed toward 20% of GDP. And outcomes are better in Hong Kong. For example, for males, life expectancy in Hong Kong is 82 years versus 77 years in the USA.
[QUOTE=ElAlamoPalermo;438864]Jackson-.
Do you consider yourself a parasite for benefiting from subsidized health insurance in Buenos Aires? It is a fact that you and every other person who has ever utilized the health care system in Buenos Aires benefits from enormous subsidies; to begin with, electricity, gas, and water are subsidized to the tune of 70% at all Buenos Aires hospitals and clinics; insurance premiums would be significantly higher if not for this SUBSIDY. Naturally, we should all excuse Jackson from this blatant hypocrisy as he is suffering from a chronic case of Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS), a devastating affliction that lasts at least 1460 days but in Jackson's particularly rabid case will continue for at least 2920 days and perhaps beyond that.[/QUOTE]I'm curioius about ElAlamoPalermo's reasoning. Apparently Jackson must either:
a.) move to a country where there's economic freedom and no socialism, or
b.) say good things about socialized or subsidized utility companies and medical care,
or he's a hypocrite. This is an idiotic and irrelevant argument to justify Obamacare.
[QUOTE=MiamiBob;438859]This is a tale of the koch's brothers vision of the world to come: they do whatever they want to create wealth and everyone else can drop dead...including the worthless parasites who might only have a net wealth or $5 million or $10 million dollars.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=MiamiBob;438861]The most powerful lobbyists get what they want and everyone pays............just what the founding father envisioned. I own lots of drug stocks--they have the deck stacked politically. I buy one non-formulary drug mail order from england for 50% of what it costs in the USA. The drug comes from england in a box that says made in the USA. This shit goes on nomatter which party is in the oval office or control congress.
Under "anne rand" speak: if this great "super men" have the talent to manipulate the system it is their right to do so. Sounds like a variation on Argentina or the traditional way elites robed and plundered in south america for hundreds of years.[/QUOTE]I agree 100% with your second point. Off the subject, I wonder if ElAlamoPalermo would consider you a hypocrite for owning drug stocks.
But you're flipping reality on its head. You disregard that the Democrat politicians you support and mainstream Republicans are the enablers. Instead you put the blame on people like the Koch brothers, who actually have promoted economic freedom and an end to corporate welfare. Marxism, socialism, corporate capitalism, subsidies for all types of "good" causes – they all sound like good ideas that create a fair, prosperous, egalitarian society. Yeah, the Koch brothers might go a little too far with certain things, but history has shown that what they espouse, free market capitalism, produces greater prosperity for all. Just compare Cuba and the Bahamas, Sri Lanka and Singapore, France and the United States (before Obama).
[QUOTE=Tiny12;438872]I don't understand your point. Aleman is a private hospital, not a public hospital.
I'm curioius about ElAlamoPalermo's reasoning. Apparently Jackson must either:
a.) move to a country where there's economic freedom and no socialism, or
b.) say good things about socialized or subsidized utility companies and medical care,
or he's a hypocrite. This is an idiotic and irrelevant argument to justify Obamacare.[/QUOTE]Jackson specifically railed against people receiving subsidized healthcare, going so far as to call them parasites; since Jackson himself benefits enormously from subsidized healthcare, he should accept that he too is a parasite (at least the people Jackson calls "parasites" are receiving these benefits in their own country, whereas Jackson benefits from subsidies as an alien in Argentina). He doesn't have to agree with the way ObamaCare was legislated but in good conscience he should stop railing against the people benefiting from its subsides as doing so makes him the definition of a hypocrite.
March: 192,000
February: 197,000
January: 144,000
Average job growth per month last 12 months: 183,000
Average job growth per month under Bush: 20,000 (58,000 excluding first year; 65,000 excluding last year)
[URL]http://www.forbes.com/sites/samanthasharf/2014/04/04/jobs-report-u-s-economy-added-192000-jobs-in-march-unemployment-remains-6-7/[/URL]
[URL]http://www.businessinsider.com/number-of-jobs-created-per-month-by-george-bush-2012-5[/URL]
So much for the Affordable Care Act being a "job killer". These numbers clearly demonstrate the false and empty rhetoric of conservative ideologues.
March, 2014:187,000
February, 2014:187,000
January, 2014:187,000
Average population growth per month last 12 months: 188,000
Estimates from USA Census Bureau
[b]So jobs haven't been growing any faster than population.[/b]
Percentage of population, 16 years and over, employed 1/1/2007: 63.3%
Percentage of population 16 years and older, employed when Obama took office, when the recession was bottoming out: 60.6%
Percentage of population 16 years and older currently employed: 58.9%
Difference between 63.3% and 58.9% of the U.S. population, 16 years and over: 10.6 million additional people who are unemployed or not looking for work, versus January of 2007.
[URL]http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000[/URL]
Congratulations Esten, your man is well on the way to taking us permanently to European levels of unemployment/underemployment. And you compare him to George Bush? Bush was the second worst president during my adult life. Third if you count adolescence - Carter was worse than Bush.
Will you look at that.
The level is lower than when he first took office.
[URL]http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000[/URL]
[QUOTE=Tiny12;438893]March, 2014:187,000
February, 2014:187,000
January, 2014:187,000
Average population growth per month last 12 months: 188,000
Estimates from USA Census Bureau
[b]So jobs haven't been growing any faster than population.[/b]
Percentage of population, 16 years and over, employed 1/1/2007: 63.3%
Percentage of population 16 years and older, employed when Obama took office, when the recession was bottoming out: 60.6%
Percentage of population 16 years and older currently employed: 58.9%
Difference between 63.3% and 58.9% of the U.S. population, 16 years and over: 10.6 million additional people who are unemployed or not looking for work, versus January of 2007.
[URL]http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000[/URL]
Congratulations Esten, your man is well on the way to taking us permanently to European levels of unemployment/underemployment. And you compare him to George Bush? Bush was the second worst president during my adult life. Third if you count adolescence - Carter was worse than Bush.[/QUOTE]