patrick.net

Call it Crazy says

Well.... The Screwing seems to be growing!!!

Obama admin. knew millions could not keep their health insurance

From NBC News

The debate was widely covered in the press in 2010, so it’s unclear what exactly the NBC investigation unit has uncovered. Individuals can keep the plans they have if those plans remain largely the same. But individuals receiving cancellation notices will have a choice of enrolling in subsidized insurance in the exchanges and will probably end up paying less for more coverage. Those who don’t qualify for the tax credits will be paying more for comprehensive insurance that will be there for them when they become sick (and could actually end up spending less for health care since more services will now be covered). They will also no longer be part of a system in which the young and healthy are offered cheap insurance premiums because their sick neighbors are priced out or denied coverage. That, after all, is the whole point of reform.

bgamall4 says

So there may have been subsequent explosions, but many people from the videos above said that the plane hit after the explosions on the lowest floors.

I've watched the videos. Those people interviewed at the time don't make that claim. They talk of explosions. They are clearly scared and confused for good reason. That video where you claim the women said 'boom, boom, boom and the plane hit' is a perfect example of you lying about the content of the videos that you post up. She simply didn't say that. I watched that entire video. The people in it aren't claiming that what they heard happened before the planes hit. That is your claim.

Just to make the addled minded author of this article "vile American- R asses" sleep a little better, I did a generic pole. Results 98% thought O bumbler is doing a great job, 99% thought Republicans were Satin, 96% thought Hillary C. was a virgin, and 100% thought that their right to food stamps, free phones, and section 8 housing was guaranteed by the Constitution. I conducted my poll on the West side of Chicago between a welfare office and a liquor store. Sweet dreams cup cake.

The Republicans have grown weak.

To remedy their electoral fortunes, they must be strong and purge all RINO's and comsymps from their party. Then run the most conservative possible candidates, well to the right of Michelle Bachmann.

Then they will gain control of the presidency and the senate.

zzyzzx says

The first income tax suggested in the United States was during the War of 1812.

Looks towards the Woodrow Wilson administration for the original intent of the modern federal income tax and the establishment of the Federal Reserve.

I believe land alone is more than 50% of all assets and it's very hard to hide.

For you muggles maybe. Unplotability spell

1. Elements of the plan were originally conservative ideas.
2. Real health insurance is expensive - especially when it is disconnected from life style choices. Charging thin people the same rates as obese, addicts at the same rates as non-addicts, gays at the same rates as heteros, crazy sports nuts at the same rates as non-thrill seekers ... drives up the cost in major ways. 80% of healthcare costs are consumed by a small fraction of people. In my family, my mother (350lbs+) has consumed so much healthcare it is outrageous (fatty tumors, multiple hernias, foot surgeries, colon problems, etc.) why should my children's college be threaten so I can pay her medical bills and millions of folks like her who feel no obligation to control their diet. And trust me I've seen her eat so much it is insane all the while trying to convince others that she has a slow metabolism and many more excuses. I used to secretly throw away food in my house to try to get her to control her weight.
3. Single payer does nothing - probably makes it more expensive as the government are less efficient than insurance companies. The real problem is people are completely disconnected from medical cost vs. life style choices. I'm all for group paying for birth defects, cancers, etc. that are a random result of life - but stop asking me to pay for completely irresponsible folks. You want to get fat, fine with me but pay for it for yourself.

bgamall4 says

1. This was originally a Republican plan from the Heritage Foundation.

...

3. Single payer would have been cheaper, but the Republicans refused.

Enough with lame excuses. Dems own this shit and you know it.

i’m still wondering what her crowd had to do with the murder of george moscone.

She covers up for NSA constantly which makes me feel uneasy about her. I don't think she's going to leave anytime soon. She is too rich and too well connected.

She'll die of old age before she leaves that cushy gig of hers.

bgamall4 says

She must be unseated in the next election, preferably by the Democrats.

What's the point? The new one will be exactly the same as the old one.

John McDonald says

Single payer does nothing - probably makes it more expensive as the government are less efficient than insurance companies.

Then why do all the single payer systems around the world cost half the US private insurance system?

I don't know who was involved, but my feeling is that some very wealthy and powerful people planned this. Shouldn't be too hard to find for FBI, to see who benefited. But I also feel that since they have been so busy covering it up until now, there is no reason why they'll let the truth out.

Call it Crazy says

We know.... The truth HURTS when the facts start coming out about this disaster of your favorite health care program.....

But, keep cheer leading it right off the cliff!!!

I don't think anything's gone off a cliff yet. When they were saying there would be minimum standards for insurance 3 years ago, what did you think that meant? When they were saying high-deductible catastrophic plans would no longer be allowed, what did you think that meant? What "facts" have just come out that we didn't know 3 years ago? Are you seriously going to sit there and tell us you were completely unaware that ACA included a provision for minimum standards of coverage? I wouldn't if I were you; that would make you look pretty stupid.

The repukes tried to kill this law 40 times. They shut down the government to try to kill the law. They put all their eggs in the "oppose ACA" basket. Now they are fucked, and they are going to grasp at any straw they can to try to "prove" that the law is a failure.

Obama lied!!! Waaaahhhhh!!!!

tax assets.. let's go the French way.

What about less liquid assets? Like my human capital (my sills)..
Or my kidneys ...

Here is the Kaiser Family Foundation's take on grandfathering.

The purpose of grandfathering: As provisions of the ACA go into effect, grandfathering provides for a smoother transition by allowing health plans to remain as is and not be required to implement certain aspects of the law’s new rules and protections.

Bigsby says

That and delete people's responses to try and support your paper thin reasoning.

I don't know of any paper that thin.

CaptainShuddup says

...and basically have no insurance at all.

Why do you guys keep dancing around the co-ins and deductibles and the personal or family deductible limits which can be in the tens of thousands a year, for all insured. Yes even especially those with subsidized "PREMIUMS".

That's basically CANCER coverage... or bad car accident coverage... It's expensive yes.. but it's better than nothing. It allows you as a family to not have to pull the plug for monetary reasons. At least giving the family time to weigh their options, without going bankrupt.

Feinstein no longer even makes a pretense of her and hubbie's robber baron ways, arrogant.

The Appropriations Committee has been re-named the Feinstein Self-Appropriations Committee.

Too bad, Kennedy was probably planning on stumpfing some really big hair gals on that trip.

FortWayne says

She covers up for NSA constantly which makes me feel uneasy about her. I don't think she's going to leave anytime soon. She is too rich and too well connected.

She'll die of old age before she leaves that cushy gig of hers.

Word. She's great at pretending to be against War and in favor of Civil Liberties, while voting the opposite way, usually with some "But I modified it to be less offensive" bullshit story.

Now Feinstein is trying to define Journalist as "Only somebody who works for a Media Megacorp, and maybe PBS, but no one else".

Just look at her donors.

1 PG&E Corp
2 JStreetPAC (pro-Israel and pro-unconditional, unlimited MIC Aid for Israel group)
3 General Atomics
4 Edison International
5 General Dynamics
6 BAE Systems
7 Diamond Foods
8 Intl Alliance Theatrical Stage Employees
9 Wells Fargo
10 Northrop Grumman
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2014&cid=N00007364&type=I&newmem=N

bgamall4 says

Ceffer says

Too bad, Kennedy was probably planning on stumpfing some really big hair gals on that trip.

You misunderstand the respect with which JFK was given by the American people. Instead we have murderers taking his place. You should be ashamed.

Why should I be ashamed because the American public has such poor judgment?

I have only minimal issue with a govt sponsored social
Safety net provided there are time limitations and work requirements attached.

My grandfather dug fire breaks and hiking trails. I dare you to try to get people to do that work. Dare ya.

Say hey! This was in the Wall Street Journal on March 30, 1999. Note "... how much it will buy."

Holy cow/interesting/compelling ...!

And where is it up to date??? Right here ... see the first chart shown in this thread.
Recent Dow day is Tuesday, October 29, 2013 __ Level is 100.0

WOW! It is hideous that this is hidden! Is there any such "Homes, Inflation Adjusted"? Yes indeed, go here:
http://patrick.net/?p=1219038&c=999083#comment-999083

bgamall4 says

if they are voted out when they do outrageous things, we keep them mindful of that. Graham and Feinstein absolutely have to go.

They fart in your general direction.

Ppl, it was Burt Lancaster's character, who'd orchestrated the whole event.

Here's "Executive Action"...

http://www.youtube.com/embed/BbF5him-EF8

Oliver Stone & Co were way too late for them to be relevant. It coincided a little too well with the X-Files generation.

Burt's the man. Only classic Hollywood could tell a story, as dramatic as that one.

Homeboy says

Are you seriously going to sit there and tell us you were completely unaware that ACA included a provision for minimum standards of coverage? I wouldn't if I were you; that would make you look pretty stupid.

Wasn't Obama aware when he said in 2012 “If already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance.”. Direct quote. No weasel room. Not "but", No "except". So I guess that makes him look pretty stupid.

pearcebauz says

Republicans were Satin

I always picture them more as Sackcloth.

Vampires? More like Twilight fake vampires. These are just squatters.

Here's what's really happening.

1. Greedy asshole "victim", or rather bum, "buys" a house, that is, promises to pay a mortgage while leaving in a bank-owned house.

2. Bum tried to flip the house and failed because the bubble burst.

3. Bum stops paying mortgage.

Normally, at this point, the bum would be kicked out and the bank would put the house up for sale. However, the bank paid way the hell too much for the house and many others, so the bank is trying to game the market by not releasing inventory. So the bank lets the bum stay in the house. Neither the bum or the bank here is the victim.

4. Bum says, lower the price of this house or I won't pay. That constitutes "cooperation" in the eye of the bum. Of course, there is no reason the bank has to take a $200k loss on this house by lowering the principle to what the house was initially worth; after all the bank paid $400k to the previous owner for the house.

5. So, the bank refuses to lower the principle, thereby effectively giving the bum $200k to lose on gambling.

6. The bum says, let me pay jack diddly now and have a balloon payment in five years. You know I'd never renege on a mortgage, even though that's what I'm doing right now as you and I have this conversation.

7. The bank knows the bum won't pay the balloon payment and wants the option of kicking the bum out at any time should the bubble re-inflate (as the bank is desperately hoping for). If the bubble does re-inflate, the bank needs to be able to quickly kick out the bum and sell the house before the greater fools realize they are in a bull trap. The only reasons the bank isn't kicking out the bum now is that the bum might be maintaining the house, keeping out vagrants, and the bank does not want to bear the cost of evicting the bum tenant and foreclosing right now (it would rather pay any expenses later than now).

8. So the bum stays in the house offering little to know contribution to the house. The bum gets free housing, at the expense of first-time home buyers. The bank gets to gamble with the hope of winning its money bank should another fool bubble take off, but does so at the expense of first-time home buyers. Meanwhile, since first-time home buyers are being fucked, the entire housing ladder collapses and the economy drags on due to this stalemate. This hurts everybody's bottom line.

Fuck the bum who won't pay his or her mortgage. Leave the bank's house and get in the back of the line for housing.

Fuck the bank who won't foreclose in hopes of a renewed bubble. We should enact a law that says the bank has 60 days to foreclose and another 60 days to sell the house or it loses ownership of the house and the state will sell it off at auction and use the proceeds for public affairs. This is the only way to quickly end the ongoing depression that the housing bubble caused. You wonder why the economy has been crap for so long? It's because of these people. Screw them all.

bgamall4 says

dodgerfanjohn says

I have only minimal issue with a govt sponsored social

Safety net provided there are time limitations and work requirements attached.

Work requirements for women with babies? And who can afford the child care? How big of a government do you want? Give them the money if they need it. The problem is there are no jobs programs because the Republicans don't want them. Infrastructure is crumbling and men are needed to fix it.

I guess the moral of the story is don't spread your legs and have babies if you can't afford it. But I know....I know.....personal responsibility is simply way too much to ask of people these days.

Hah! Nice. The last three options were/are/will be the most entertaining. I belong to an evil trade union so all my health insurance is free.

if they are able to pork
then they are able to work.

bgamall4 says

Work requirements for women with babies?

Single payer.

Are there jobs for everyone in this Brave New Economy we have? Certainly not making stuff, so that's out. Maybe jobs in maintenance or exploiting natural resources. Service jobs pay poverty wages, so that's no road to splendor.
If we didn't have public assistance programs, we'd have food riots within the week. Then where would be safe for rich people? No, they know they have to keep paying for people to do nothing. But they still like to bitch about it, as if their own actions didnt create the very problem they rail against. The problem is still that they pay too little tax on capital gains. Raise that level to 45% on income over a million and we'd see jobs return to America.

I thought it supposedly had something to do with his admin letting down the cubans who went up against castro with the Bay of Pigs invasion.

Isn't the government also supposedly going to let us know the story after enough time has gone by ?

bob2356 says

Wasn't Obama aware when he said in 2012 “If already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance.”. Direct quote. No weasel room. Not "but", No "except". So I guess that makes him look pretty stupid.

I agree. It was a blunder. He even admitted it wasn't literally true. What's your point?

@bob2356 - yes, single payer can be better at controlling cost because a single payer can dictate the size of the pie - thus "death panels" or essentially rationing care and we all fight over our share. Thus long lines which should start to happen in the USA in very short order in 2014 as they do in most of the world. Obamacare has extremely high deductibles for the basic plans so I suppose those deductibles will carry with it a measure of cost control - I mean they are really crappy health plans as compared with what middle class folks are used to unless you want a 30%+ increase in cost. After the initial pop in cost for the all the fatties with their pre-existing conditions joining the system - it will be interesting to see what cost do in 2015 and beyond. In the UK a few months ago it was reported that 30,000 each year die because of NHS issues and delayed care - now a lot of those are elderly and are no longer in the work force so their deaths do not have as great as an economic impact. I feel caring for the elderly is a sign of a wealthier society and better values. These healthcare cost decisions are going to be made in favor of the largest or nosiest voters as everything in politics is and I don't think overtime there will be any exception here. Males, blacks, and lower middle class are likely to be the most screwed. As for me, thankfully out sourced medicine is getting more popular so if we really need some care fast and can afford to fly we are going to get it.

bgamall4 says

John McDonald says

3. Single payer does nothing - probably makes it more expensive as the government are less efficient than insurance companies.

But single payer controls costs better, right?

Government single payer may force premiums down, but it'll be at the expense of the quality of care one receives as doctors get paid less and fraud, waste and abuse increase. Don't lose the competition or you'll lose quality in the long run....doctors need incentive like the rest of us.

ThreeBays says

It doesn't matter that you're perfectly healthy. Most motorists are also perfectly not in a car crash too.

Insurance is about pooling money from those who don't need to use it right now with those who do need it right now. If everybody needed it at the same then it can't work.

We have to be a bit unselfish here - a bit socialist. Like with Social(ist) Security, those who are young and healthy contribute to taking care of the old and sick. It makes sense, and not just out of kindness. One day the young and healthy will be old and sick too.

Sure. That's all fine and well. What we don't have to do, is fund the entire private health insurance racket.

There's nothing much socialist about ppaca. Its much more like fascism

Obamacare offers cheap insurance - that comes with massive deductibles and pitiful copays.

When somebody who makes $25k/year is faced with $2500 for an CAT Scan while their Obamacare-sponsored private insurance carries a Deductible of $5000, they will skip the early detection and hope for the best, then end up in the ER with an expensive untreatable illness. Why? $2500 is 10% of that person's income, and they probably have negative disposable income to begin with, living paycheck to paycheck. $2500 is most of a month's paycheck, and if they get the CAT scan, how will they pay the rent?

But the fun doesn't stop there, because now that they have insurance, they can be charged 30% of all costs over $5000... So if the CAT scan does reveal a treatable disease in the early stages, it'll still be likely to cost them their home and all their savings just like before after the pitiful 60-70% copay kicks in after $5000, leaving them months behind in bills plus all the sick time (probably unpaid) income loss.

Sure, at $500 month with a $250 gov sub, so $250 out of pocket, they have health insurance, but it's Walmart Quality Insurance. For the large number of uninsured who make at or near the minimum wage, it's hard to imagine how a $100/month plan with a $5000 deductible and only a 65/35 after that is going to be of much use.