patrick.net

I feel like the "Liberal media" thing comes up on this site a lot and each and every time the same nonsense is mentioned. Nonsense since the BIGGEST cable news channel in the US is in fact conservative. That and conservative talk shows totally dominate the AM frequency nation-wide, of which has millions of daily listeners, especially in middle America.

I'd go further and say conservative media is actually more effective at delivering its message since whatever is mentioned on those channels can RELIABLY be counted on to be repeated by its listeners. There isn't a single day that I have to wonder what the resident conservative commentators on this site will say: They simply repeat verbatim what they've heard on their chosen conservative news and media outlets.

That's just the thing: I happen to have more than a few conservative friends and of them, most actually hate these talk shows and other forms of conservative media because in their opinion they're not only stupid, but it also detracts from useful and constructive conversation. Conservative media is not about solving problems or having real debates. Its simply all about conservatives versus liberals and nothing else. And hence why we have a stalemate. I can respect and appreciate a intelligent debate with people who might have an opinion that differs from mine. But when its simply a repeat of cheap talking points made on a infomercial-supported hot air talk show then forget about it.

edvard2 says

I feel like the "Liberal media" thing comes up on this site a lot and each and every time the same nonsense is mentioned. Nonsense since the BIGGEST cable news channel in the US is in fact conservative. That and conservative talk shows totally dominate the AM frequency nation-wide, of which has millions of daily listeners, especially in middle America.

Ed,
i couldn't fit your entire quote, but I agree w/ some of it. My beef w/ the MSM, is that not that it doesn't shed bad light on anyone w/ a 'D' hanging after their name. It's that it doesn't report the very valid news that would shed that bad light. That's the problem. I would take CNN, NBC etal more seriously if they mentioned the events that are relevant; then let the viewer decide or how he/she will digest that new. How 'bout a news organization that brings out a relevant event, mention what went wrong, mention the politician's name, and DON'T mention the party affiliation (Fox included too on this). Let the viewer do their homework via curiosity, and find out which party they belong to... To me that would be refreshing.

As a conservative, I don't watch Hannity, Greta, etc. I don't listen to Rush. He 'projects', which I absolutely abhor (just like sbh here on 'ol pat.net)...... I do watch the first 10 minutes of O'Reilly's 'talking points', and then flip to the Bruins game. I do read Michelle Malkin and Krauthammer online. Is a news organization (lib or con) supposed to offer a solution to the problems that both Rupublicans and Democrats cause? I don't think it's their responsibility.

But outside of Fox and talk radio, and a handful of newspapers in major cities, the rest is liberal leaning... Yes Fox is big, but outnumbered by how many liberal leaning networks? (CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, ABC) That's 5 to 1, and I'm probably forgetting a couple more. The newspaper scene/ratio is even worse. I'd say the internet is a wash.

I live in a VERY liberal part of Massachusetts, outside of Boston. I've been goaded into political arguments at parties years ago, that I didn't want to participate in. I have a TON of liberal friends, of which most are respectful, and undestand limits, being tactful, yet know when to 'throw 'em down' in a discussion.

My point being, is that for the most part, you'll have civility among libs and cons. It's just the small % on both sides that give each group a black eye. And that is unfortunate.

She needs a beard. Economists without beards look weird. Beards make it harder to see the lips moving, which means they are lying.

Also, you can always tell what they had for lunch.

Saying that politicians lie is stating the obvious.

Rather, a scorecard about where they lied, why they lied, and what they plan on lying about next.

More Stupid People Trust Fox News
I can't watch any of the MSM any more. They all seem to "Perform" "Commentary",repeat sound bites, or try to sell books from their present guest. Damn! Now I've got to research "journalism".

While I'm at it, DIE! Main Slime Media,DIE!

The only source for the truth is comments on Patnet.

CaptainShuddup says

Dan8267 says

stupider

Is that even a word that a person speaking on this topic should even be using?

Yes

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/stupider

zzyzzx says

And that would be fine if there was a horde of dumb asses behind Fox News in jury-rigged Congressional districts electing assholes who literally shut down the government during a time of war and massive unemployment in order to kill a law in a way not subscribed by the Constitution.

Averagebear,
For once I believe we are in some agreement. To be honest, I think most cable news is crap anyway. It seriously barely scratches the surface of any story meaning that anyone who uses it as a news source likely doesn't understand what the details behind the stories are. Too much of the content in most largescale news outlets pertains to what the opinions of their various commentators say.

News is more or less entertainment to most people these days. That's the problem. Many people also tend to have an increasingly limited attention span. Nobody sits to read a newspaper anymore because they can simply look it up instantly. There is more information available than ever but this has also made people inherently lazy.

I live in a very liberal part of the Bay Area but grew up in the total stark-opposite environment in the very rural and conservative South. So I have experienced what you experienced in reverse. In fact, I wasn't very political at all when I was living in the South. It seemed to me that people more or less kept the politics under the rug: it was something you were not supposed to talk about in public because we all knew that our opinions might be different than others. I never though that was very healthy. Sure- we all disagree, but so what?

The question is how do we start having those civil discussions? I believe the answer lies with a person's ability to think constructively.

Only, and it's the whole Rupert Murdoch empire that's evil.

Homeboy says

Excuse me, dick - I never SAID it's going to lower healthcare costs overall. I said it has slowed the rate of increase, and I said it provides subsidies for those who can't afford insurance. You can fucking well look up my posting history. Let me know when you find a post where I said rates are going down on overall average.

Dick? Sorry the name is bob. I never said anything about a "fiscal shit storm", I guess that makes you the "fucking moron" if you can't keep who you are replying to straight. Do you kiss your mother with that mouth? Stop projecting that anytime makes a point there's a quote from you involved. Sometimes people just make general points.

Again your obsession with praising aca overrides the reality. Either you confuse health care costs with premiums or you are throwing out misdirections to make aca look better. Health care costs could be high even if no insurance was involved at all. In Cuba and Switzerland costs are pretty high for example without insurance being involved. The fact is the huge cost of health insurance is a very big part of the overall costs of health care and aca increases the involvement of health insurance.

The entire point of health care reform is supposed to be to lower health care costs overall. Aca doesn't do that. In my opinion aca is more about providing a signature piece of legislation for democrats to boost their political fortunes rather than a serious effort to provide any real reform. I don't have a lot of sympathy that it's blowing up in their faces.

Homeboy says

I said it has slowed the rate of increase

ACA has SLOWED the costs of premium increases? How is that possible? There is only one months data. Are you sure you know the difference between past, present, and future tense? The costs of premium increases won't be slowed by aca as some immutable law like the sun rising in the east, They are projected to be slowed by the same people that projected a million people signing up on the health care exchanges the first month. Premium increases have been low by historical standards (although still high on the order of 3-4% most years with a couple years 8-9%, certainly NOT double digit) since the early 2000's. I will reserve judgement on the further lowering of the rate of increases until it happens, as in over a course of years. Maybe you should do the same. Believe it or not financial projections by government don't always work out.

From the WSJ March 22nd:
"In a private presentation to brokers late last month, UnitedHealth Group Inc., the nation's largest carrier, said premiums for some consumers buying their own plans could go up as much as 116%, and small-business rates as much as 25% to 50%. The company said the estimates were driven in part by growing medical costs not directly tied to the law. It also cited the law's requirements that health status not affect rates and that plans include certain minimum benefits and limits to out-of-pocket charges, among other things.

Jeff Alter, who leads UnitedHealth's employer and individual insurance business, said the numbers represented a "high-end scenario,"

This was a presentation from the largest insurance carrier to it's brokers to keep them informed. So there is no reason not to believe it. It's the high end worst case numbers but it still points to healthy increases coming in 2014. If you really think you can cut out the lowest cost, lowest coverage plans and heap on additional expensive requirements and somehow through the magic of "exchanges" lower premiums overall (the key word is overall, not for one group or another) then good on you mate. I don't see any realistic numbers on how this is possible.

Homeboy says

To a certain extent, the wealthy are paying a bit more in taxes in order for everyone to have a fair chance to get insurance. Sorry that bothers you; it really doesn't bother me a bit.

Are you scared to actually debate me without making up a false position that I never took? I usually like your posts, Bob, but right now you're acting like a little bitch.

The wealthy are paying a little more in taxes? That's it? That's your position? Really? People from 50-65 use 6 times as much care as people from 18-40. Under aca the former group will pay about 3 times the premiums of the latter group. People from 50-65 have much higher wealth than people from 18-40. Uninsured people from 18-40 (where most of the uninsured are) are going be forced to pick up insurance or pay penalties. There are massive subsidies from the young who can least afford it to the old who should be able to, although many can't. Aca isn't going to work at all unless large numbers of uninsured young people sign up.

This would be all a very good thing for me personally since I'm well into the the first group. But I see it as just one more example of the greedy self centered baby boomers (embarassed to say my generation) fucking everyone else. Yes it bothers me and it should bother you. Yes it is a zero sum game. How can it be anything else. There is only so much money in the country. All spending on health care comes out of something else. Baby boomers shuffling around the chairs on the deck of the titanic while locking the gates to steerage class (the young) is just unacceptable in my mind.

Obama had a golden opportunity to do real health care reform and blew it. Which is really a shame since it's really the only major legislation that will come out of 8 years in office. One of the poorest records of any president. Even though I didn't support him, I had expected more.

Homeboy says

So, if the rate of premium increase has slowed, and people can't be denied insurance, and policies are covering more essential benefits than they used to, and people who need financial help are getting subsidies, aren't we better off? I think we are. I'd sure love to hear your reasoning as to how this is worse than double-digit annual rate hikes, millions denied insurance, and illness being the number one cause of bankruptcy.

I don't know it's better and you don't either. You are projecting it will be better. I will reserve judgement. If it turns out to be great then I will be thrilled. The law of unintended consequences has a way of raising it's ugly head. There are many ways it could go badly wrong.

What I do know is you, as well as the writers of the aca, are fixated on the concept of providing health insurance when the true issue is providing health care. They are not one and the same or even close. I can fully understand the motivations of the writers of aca, maximizing benefits to campaign contributors while pleasing the largest amount of voters. I don't understand your unlimited enthusiasm.

We are stuck with aca now, but that doesn't mean it's a good piece of legislation or that there weren't much better options.

As much as you guys hate to admit it there is no such thing a liberal bias in the mainstream media.

There is reality, and there is fiction.

It's why we joke abut reality having a well known liberal bias.

It is a conservative strategy to discount reality because it does not favor them. When I say conservative, I mean creationists. And I mean hard money Fed cultists. I mean free market laissez-faire plutocrats.

I can admit it has been a disaster on roll out and criticize Obamacare. I can admit Obama has not done what he campaigned on - for reasons of his own and because he has been challenged by a minority in ways never before seen. This is reality, and I can accept it and put the blame where it belongs. Obama shares fault.

A Fox news banner waving, Fed hating Creationist cannot admit that any of his beliefs are incorrect, his policies are not effective. This is reality but he cannot accept it.

edvard2 says

I'd go further and say conservative media is actually more effective at delivering its message since whatever is mentioned on those channels can RELIABLY be counted on to be repeated by its listeners.

Ed,

You bring up an interesting point. I don't think conservative media is 'more effective' at delivering its message. It's just that we conservatives are 'funnelled' into our choices of AM talk radio and Fox. These are the islands we have to swim to, in a sea of liberalism, to hear people talk about beliefs we share... Then you get other small islands, like the Boston Herald and the Washington Times...

egads101 says

Oracle answers smgauld nonsense

At the same time you are ignoring some fundamental problems. That are explained by "we will pay for the debt by inflation". Since the fiat money is only backed by confidence when there is no more confidence the value plummets.

AverageBear says

You bring up an interesting point. I don't think conservative media is 'more effective' at delivering its message. It's just that we conservatives are 'funnelled' into our choices of AM talk radio and Fox. These are the islands we have to swim to, in a sea of liberalism, to hear people talk about beliefs we share... Then you get other small islands, like the Boston Herald and the Washington Times...

Trying to be civil here ( given the gist of the conversation) but I actually spent a considerable amount of time listening to a few well-known right wing AM talk shows for about a year. I was volunteering at a museum working on restoration projects in a shop. One of the guys listened to these shows fervently.

To me this sort of media has a style to it. There was a lot of repetition and a number of common themes these shows had. The basic premise was to present some sort of current event and then attach the outcome to the actions and behavior of liberals. There is a big difference between liberals and democrats. The liberals being the "boogeyman" in these shows were generically liberal so the shows had less to do with hard-core politics and more about using a simple cause and effect scheme.

In many ways it seemed similar to some of the radio infomercials that were around during the 20's-30's, where sometimes an entire show revolved around a product, procedure, or company. There was a different theme to each episode, but always a careful mention of the company the show revolved around. Maybe it was about biscuits, a radio manufacturer, or whatnot. It might have gone something like this:

" Alright everybody, now its time for a little music but before we continue, I want to remind everyone about Big Boy Biscuits... they'll put a smile on yer' face and food in yer belly... take it away boys! ( this would be followed by a band playing a song about biscuits or whatnot). So sure- the show would "be" about something, but the overall subject was the same. Its pretty much the same with these AM talk shows: " Such and such happened today.... and its because of liberals"

I find it sort of interesting. I think those shows are intentionally made as self-reassuring mechanisms: They play into a certain level of annoyance a select target demographic has, where they might not know the answers to these problems but when someone comes along and gives them a reason- in this case liberals- then they become instantly satisfying. Its also an advertiser's dream. By keeping the theme of the shows static and with a well known listening demographic, this gives advertisers a reliable set of statistics in which products can be marketed more easily to those listeners. Reliability. Repetition. Listener satisfaction. Its all worked and worked very, very well.

To be fair, there are definitely plenty of left-leaning publications and shows that do the same thing. The model used by right wing talk shows will work just as well for left wing media. Its just that in my year of listening to these right wing shows- which is something I can almost guarantee most on the left don't, there were specific patterns to it and it made me think very differently about where some of these opinions and perspectives were coming from when it came to some of the more conservative folks I've encountered.

In the end these shows are entertainment. Its too bad many don't see them as such. If all the listeners did was hear these, get to enjoy poking fun at liberals/conservatives for a few hours, switch it off and get back to the real world, then perhaps this would eliminate some of the sensational overtones that seems to have replaced rational discussion when it comes to everyday politics.

What will the attached do to household formation/rental rates/real estate in general.

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/10/workforce-population-jobs-by-age-group_2546.html

I need a mathematical economist to explain it to me because Im just not that smart.

Dan always speaks on the cheap....

Dan8267 says

CaptainShuddup says

Dan8267 says

stupider

Is that even a word that a person speaking on this topic should even be using?

Yes

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/stupider

If Hitler - a man held in roughly the same class as Clinton by the modern conservative - surfaced in a Michigan nursing home and railed against Obamacare, the conservatives would quote him approvingly.

edvard2 says

To be fair, there are definitely plenty of left-leaning publications and shows that do the same thing. The model used by right wing talk shows will work just as well for left wing media.

what ever happened to the left wing talk shows ?

It says bill is distancing hillary from aca as 2016 approaches..
Call it Crazy says

WOW... What's it say when Clinton is now turning on Obama???

Tim Aurora says

homaswong.1986 says

Too bad i never listen to Rush radio program ... what ever made you assume as such ?

You are further down the chain. You just listen to people who listen to Rush.

.
REALLY !
.

"..John Hollar, the mayor of Montpelier and a registered lobbyist who represents Bank of America and Wells Fargo in Vermont."

George Carlin: "They’ve long since bought, and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls, they got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. They got you by the balls."

egads101 says

and yet, we've had several million new jobs over the past 3.5 years...

Those numbers indicate 70k jobs per month breakeven is 150k jobs per month. No we are not creating new jobs. egads101 says

AND, contrary to the crap that passes for knowledge on pat.net, average hourly compensation is up 2.2% year over year. That would not be the case if we were replacing good jobs with bad ones.

Sure it does you just have to pull your standard trick of cherry picking the data.

egads101 says

really? you shout INFLATION INFLATION INFLATION, and then you think a house with a 4% mortgage for 28 more years is going to turn out bad?

It is turning out bad because it encourages people to invest when they should not as this violates the business cycle. It causes overinvestment as is the case in China now and here now as bad companies that should have been liquidated were not and empty cities (12 per year) are being built in China. It creates the charade can be continued through mal investment fallacy. This is where you mutts are the most misguided.

You really are whistling past the graveyard.

Call it Crazy says

Maybe he IS a really smart guy and wants to distant himself from O'Boy's lies so he doesn't get sucked down the drain along with O'care and O'boy...

Yeah, that's kind of what I suspect as well. Watching that interview, I felt like he was trying to clear a path for his wife.

Homeboy says

Bill Clinton is a really smart guy, but I don't think he thought this one through.

Clinton did not think NAFTA through nor the Community Reinivestment Act.
http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350_1877322,00.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/education/edlife/why-science-majors-change-their-mind-its-just-so-darn-hard.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Have a wild idea: Lets provide incentives for Science Degrees, Tax havens for R&D and Manufacturing. Remember your Magnovox, HP, Maytag. We can do this, but its going to be harder than getting degrees in Humanities.

Entitlemented says

Have a wild idea: Lets provide incentives for Science Degrees, Tax havens for R&D and Manufacturing. Remember your Magnovox, HP, Maytag. We can do this, but its going to be harder than getting degrees in Humanities.

well for one.. get rid of the burden of Non-STEM courses to complete the degree requirements... is there a need for General Education credit courses covering history, music, arts, language and other non essential courses?

Therefore more time and focus is dedicated to STEM courses...

your idea is not wild at all.. but common practice in advanced economies.. how else did the Japanese leap frog to being number 2 economy...

I'm not getting into most of your "points". Most of them seem to be you fighting with yourself. I never said aca won't "work", I just question what "work" means. I never said I hated aca, you just assume that because I question it. You just seem totally incapable of grasping that health insurance and health care aren't the same thing. I really can't explain it to you. Health insurance is part of the problem, not the solution. Look at your own list of problems, 1. insurance, 2.insurance, 3.insurance, 4. insurance. See pattern? aca heaps on even more insurance.

Homeboy says

bob2356 says

Premium increases have been low by historical standards (although still high on the order of 3-4% most years with a couple years 8-9%, certainly NOT double digit) since the early 2000's.

Complete bullshit. You can't snow me by just making things up. Since I already did the research several months ago, I will simply refer you to my previous thread on the subject:

http://patrick.net/?p=1228425

Homeboy says

They have ALREADY slowed. ACA has been law since 2010. So I guess you're one of these guys who blames any PROBLEM between 2010-2014 on ACA, but claims ACA has nothing to do with any IMPROVEMENT between 2010-2014. You can't have it both ways.

You are doing what you scream about everyone else doing. Saying aca has helped when it favors you and saying it isn't here yet when it doesn't. I'm just making things up? I said 3-4% (should have been 4-5%,mea culpa, mea culpa) from the early 2000's with a couple years 9%. So let's see from your chart. 10%,9%,6%,5%,5%,5%,3%,9%,4%,4%. Looks like what I "made up" is in perfect agreement with the chart you posted. Was someone talking about having it both ways?

What problems have I blamed on aca from 2010 to 2013. Search my postings, find one, go ahead. Not going to happen. Once again you assume that anyone that would begin to question aca must hate it. You know what they say about assume.

You on the other hand can't even begin to claim aca lowered premiums in the 2010-2012 time frame. The law wasn't even signed until march 2010. The agencies didn't even start to write the regs until late 2010. The major parts of the regs weren't published until 2011 into 2012. So no one could even start working on the actuarial calculations until they had these. The final rules were posted by various agencies involved between july and oct 2013. Believe or not insurance companies don't just reach into a hat and pick a number. There are months of work before publishing rates for the FOLLOWING year. So no sorry, the rates for 2010-2012 don't reflect aca at all. I've done a lot of work with regs in the past, so I do know how the process works.

Homeboy says

The choice was between ACA or a completely broken system with millions of people who couldn't afford healthcare. We didn't HAVE choice between ACA and something better.

Millions of people who couldn't afford health insurance, not healthcare. We did have many choices, but Obama didn't pursue them. He basically let the insurance companies write the law. Just because aca is the only choice made doesn't make it a good choice, again I'll reserve judgement (a concept you either choose to ignore or don't understand at all because it upsets your preconceived notion that anyone who doesn't praise aca as much as you do hates it). There were "better options" that could have become law, I've posted before on this, I'll skip repeating it. Why is it written in stone (at least to you) that just because aca is here that other options that actually do reduce health care costs can't be pursued? It's not mutually exclusive. The end game is reducing the overall cost to society, not pumping up insurance companies bottom line or playing three card monte with who pays.

Does your definition of 'gold bug' include those that have less than 20% of their portfolio in gold? Do you lump in 'silver bugs' in as well? Just curious...

I've scaled out of gold in 2012 (phew!), but still have 8% of my portfolio in SLW. I understand that it's 'dead $$' for awhile. But I'm expecting the tight silver market to tighten up more as silver gets consumed by various industries. Throw in a fiscal crisis, and viola! Some 'dry powder' to buy some more DGI stocks.....

WOW! The UNtrustworthy are certainly in control of what information is apparent to the people!

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 Friday, November 15, 2013 __ Level is 101.8

WOW! It is hideous that this is hidden! Is there any such "Homes, Inflation Adjusted"? Yes! This was in the New York Times on August 27, 2006:

And up to date (by me) is here:
http://patrick.net/?p=1219038&c=999083#comment-999083

WOW! The UNtrustworthy are certainly in control of what information is apparent to the people!

And http://patrick.net/?p=1230886

bob2356 says

I'm not getting into most of your "points". Most of them seem to be you fighting with yourself.

Just as I thought. You can't hold your ground in a factual debate. You can only cast vague aspersions. The only reason it might seem like I'm fighting with myself is that I have to keep wasting bandwidth correcting all the strawman arguments you make up. I don't enjoy it either. So stop doing that.

bob2356 says

I never said aca won't "work", I just question what "work" means.

Silly semantic argument. Yawn.

bob2356 says

You just seem totally incapable of grasping that health insurance and health care aren't the same thing.

Completely unfounded charge. Of course I understand what those things are. Do you?

bob2356 says

I really can't explain it to you. Health insurance is part of the problem, not the solution. Look at your own list of problems, 1. insurance, 2.insurance, 3.insurance, 4. insurance. See pattern? aca heaps on even more insurance.

See? Again, you have ALREADY made up your mind that ACA is fatally flawed and cannot work, merely on theoretical grounds. This is before you have examined ANY evidence or data. You are arguing that it CAN'T work because it is "insurance insurance insurance".

IF ACA WERE REPEALED TODAY, WE WOULD STILL HAVE A SYSTEM OF HEALTH INSURANCE. Repealing ACA would not cause us to suddenly have socialized medicine like you want. It's like you owned a car that you didn't like because it was blue, then got a new car that was ALSO blue, and complained that you liked the old car better.

Again, I agree that there could be a better solution. Other countries have better solutions to healthcare than we do. But there is no other solution on the table, and the ONLY way we will ever get to socialized medicine is by taking small steps in that direction. As long as we're not WORSE off, why are you bothered by this?

By the way, ACA does not "heap on more insurance". We have the same players we had before; we are simply regulating some of the more cutthroat practices they were engaging in, and presenting the options in a convenient format so that consumers can shop and compare, something which was exceedingly difficult to do before.

bob2356 says

You are doing what you scream about everyone else doing. Saying aca has helped when it favors you and saying it isn't here yet when it doesn't

Do you have an example of me doing that, or did you just pull that out of your ass? I will remind you that I only mentioned the slowing of premium increases because people were falsely claiming that ACA had caused premiums to skyrocket. It's simply not true. Try to remember my position please. I have said over and over that I don't necessarily believe ACA is going to lower rates on overall average. I'm simply saying that if rates aren't getting WORSE, and we achieve OTHER important reforms, then we are better off, so we have taken a step in the right direction.

Am I not allowed to disprove people's incorrect claim that rates are skyrocketing, without being accused of being duplicitous?

bob2356 says

I said 3-4% (should have been 4-5%,mea culpa, mea culpa) from the early 2000's with a couple years 9%. So let's see from your chart. 10%,9%,6%,5%,5%,5%,3%,9%,4%,4%. Looks like what I "made up" is in perfect agreement with the chart you posted. Was someone talking about having it both ways?

You're doing a lot of waffling on that. You implied that my assertion of double-digit increases was a lie, i.e. "certainly NOT double digit". In fact, there were FIVE YEARS IN A ROW, STARTING IN 2000 of double digit increases. Now you're trying to cherry pick PART of my chart to try to make it look like there were never double digit increases. Shameful.

bob2356 says

You on the other hand can't even begin to claim aca lowered premiums in the 2010-2012 time frame. The law wasn't even signed until march 2010. The agencies didn't even start to write the regs until late 2010.

I agree. I only offer the evidence in order to disprove the assertion that ACA has made us WORSE off with regard to premiums. It has not.

bob2356 says

Millions of people who couldn't afford health insurance, not healthcare.

A rather facile argument. A middle class person who contracts a serious illness couldn't even begin to afford to pay cash for treatment. Again, I offer the fact that illness was the number one cause of bankruptcy as evidence.

But please, tell me you're one of those Libertarian types who believes that an all cash system would have a snowball's chance in hell of working in the U.S. (are there ANY industrialized countries where that works?) Like I said, I could use a laugh.

bob2356 says

Just because aca is the only choice made doesn't make it a good choice, again I'll reserve judgement (a concept you either choose to ignore or don't understand at all because it upsets your preconceived notion that anyone who doesn't praise aca as much as you do hates it)

HA HA HA HA!! YOU'RE "reserving judgment"? Since when? Didn't you just get through saying ACA can't possibly work because it "heaps on more insurance"?bob2356 says

a concept you either choose to ignore or don't understand at all because it upsets your preconceived notion that anyone who doesn't praise aca as much as you do hates it

Uh, no - YOU have a preconceived notion that anyone who doesn't HATE ACA as much as you do is giving unlimited praise to it. There, did I win, or do you want to go around a couple more times on that?

bob2356 says

There were "better options" that could have become law

I ask you to simply name the "better option", that would have had the political will to become law against republican obstructionism. You never know, I might agree with you.

bob2356 says

Why is it written in stone (at least to you) that just because aca is here that other options that actually do reduce health care costs can't be pursued?

Huh? I'M the one who said we have a foot in the door and can work towards IMPROVING the situation. YOU'RE the one who is closed to the entire idea of change.

bob2356 says

The end game is reducing the overall cost to society, not pumping up insurance companies bottom line or playing three card monte with who pays.

This is a ridiculous argument. ANY change to the system is going to change the dynamics of how much people pay for insurance. A fully socialized system would change it even MORE. I have a theory about you. You seem to bring up this "fairness" argument a lot, and the way ACA works is that wealthy people are not going to be reaping a lot of benefit from the system. Just a wild guess, but are you above the income requirements to get a subsidy, and is this perhaps a slight case of sour grapes on your part?

Quigley says

The monthly chart clearly shows gold speculation fueled by the threat of government default.

I bought a little bit of GLD in mid October for just that reason. 48hrs later they had the "crisis" resolved (by kicking the can down the road a little bit more).

So much for playing a hunch.

I will take you mutt's silence to indicate tacit agreement.

Homeboy says

They have ALREADY slowed. ACA has been law since 2010. So I guess you're one of these guys who blames any PROBLEM between 2010-2014 on ACA, but claims ACA has nothing to do with any IMPROVEMENT between 2010-2014. You can't have it both ways.

Homeboy says

I agree. I only offer the evidence in order to disprove the assertion that ACA has made us WORSE off with regard to premiums. It has not.

I'm sorry, but Improvement and not made worse are contradictory plain and simple. Which is your position? Even if aca was actually published in the federal register in time to affect rates for 2010-2013 (it wasnt') how could aca be an improvement if the data is following a 10 year trend line and the trend didn't change.

I cherry picked your data? Reread (or better read it for the first time) what I wrote. My statement almost exactly matches your data (off by 1% for 3 years, BFD). How is that "complete bullshit", your words. My statement was about 2004 to 2014 posted before you posted your chart. How could I cherry pick data you didn't even post yet? There were no double digit increases in the last 10 years, unlike most if not all of the 20 years prior to that. So how did aca address "skyrocketing double digit increases"? Are you really saying double digit increases that ended 10 years ago and were below 5% before aca was even signed were somehow affected by aca? Shameful, simply shameful, This from the man who's favorite word is strawman? I expected better.

The proper response here is I was wrong. Aca had nothing to do with insurance rates 2010-2013.

bob2356 says

This would be all a very good thing for me personally since I'm well into the the first group

Homeboy says

Just a wild guess, but are you above the income requirements to get a subsidy, and is this perhaps a slight case of sour grapes on your part?

I'm seriously wasting my time debating someone who either doesn't read what I post or pretends not to. "This would be all a very good thing for me personally" Look up, read. see it, got it now? I would benefit just fine, at the expense of the two generations that came after me. Yes I think that's unfair. The rates should reflect the risks. You are the classic baby boomer, everyone owes me. People in their 40's and 50's vote a lot more and contribute a lot more campaign money that people in their 20's and 30's. Do you think that calculation didn't occur to the people (people who need both votes and campaign contributions) who wrote aca? Of course it did.

Sour grapes? I don't need or desire a subsidy. I don't have to worry about paying the penalty if I didn't get insurance (I will) since I don't get tax refunds. I don't even need to participate in the insurance system at all. I have citizenship and permanent residence in 2 countries with universal health care. If I wanted to (I won't) I could just pay cash for doctor visits and leave if something serious came up health wise.

Homeboy says

This is a ridiculous argument. ANY change to the system is going to change the dynamics of how much people pay for insurance. A fully socialized system would change it even MORE

You really don't grasp how this all works do you? In a "fully socialized system" (are you trying to say universal health care perhaps?) people won't pay for insurance at all. There is no insurance (actually there is some limited private insurance for people who don't want to use the public system). There is no billing department in every doctors office and hospital, no premium collections, no insurance company profits, no executive salaries, no insurance company operating costs, no insurance company lobbying costs, no profitable referral business for doctors and hospitals, no incentive for billing fraud, no incentive to over treat, the list goes on and on. All of which is paid for by every person who has health insurance, or medicare, or pays taxes for medicaid. None of which contributes one bit to actual health care. It's billions of dollars wasted every year.

This is what should have and could have been tackled. All of which WILL have to be tackled some day aca or no aca. So yes I think aca will work fine at changing around who pays and getting people insurance who didn't have it.

LET ME REPEAT THAT SO YOU DON"T MISS IT. I think aca will work fine at changing around who pays and getting people insurance who didn't have it. Aca treats the symptoms just fine, but not the problem. Sure is hard to see this here forest with all these doggone trees in the way.

Aca won't lower overall costs, everyone (except perhaps you) agrees, on that point. These will continue to climb to even more unsustainable levels. At some point unsustainable will be truly unsustainable even when masked by tax subsidies. Which is why I say you simply don't understand the difference between health care and health insurance or the implications.

Ok you can scream strawman 10 times now.

You know, Bob - I tried to read your latest post, and I just can't get past your condescending attitude. Practically every sentence starts out with "You don't read" "You don't understand" "You don't get it" "You don't grasp" "You're being misleading" "You're giving unlimited praise and enthusiasm" "You don't understand the difference between x and y", "You're this and you're that" or similar.

I'm trying to explain some stuff to you, but you seem stuck in a mindset that anyone who doesn't buy into your "ACA can't possibly work" theory must be stupid, simply by virtue of the fact that they don't agree with your snively little nitpicky bullshit.

I'm sorry, but it's too much work to write a long thoughtful post when you just dismiss everything out of hand and pepper every sentence with false accusations.

If you ever want to actually DISCUSS this, let me know.

Entitlemented says

Clinton did not think NAFTA through nor the Community Reinivestment Act.

Oh god - I had a feeling we'd hear from the "blame Clinton for everything" crowd. CRA did not cause the housing bubble; that is a bit of right-wing fiction that has been debunked ad infinitum. And Gramm-Leach-Bliley was a republican bill. I mean, yeah he didn't veto it, but to say it was Clinton's doing is rather a stretch, don't you think?

Homeboy says

... If you ever want to actually DISCUSS this, let me know.

Translation: "I can't counter bob's response, so instead I'll focus on the delivery - his condescending attitude. But my condescending attitude is always just fine."

egads101 says

indigenous says

Renters require jobs of which your pope has created a gargantuan dearth of.

and yet, we've had several million new jobs over the past 3.5 years...

do you fucks always just make up whatever you want, because, say, doing research for five minutes is just too much for you to do?

3 million / (3.5*12)=71,429 per month

Since you are the mathematician I used you numbers?

egads101 says

AverageBear says

Does your definition of 'gold bug' include those that have less than 20% of their portfolio in gold? Do you lump in 'silver bugs' in as well? Just curious...

Not as much. But do you remember underwaterman? the dumbfuck who sold his home two years ago, and went all in on gold and silver??

I really miss him!!!

-----------------------------
Did underwaterman tell you his timeline on holding onto the gold? By no means am I defending him, (I dont know him at all), but if he has the means of holding this gold position for 5-10-15 years, then the dip in gold the last year would be moot, no?

I seriously question how Obama is now going to allow formerly ineligible health insurance policies, now eligible for one year. Insurance agencies have been preparing for Obamacare for the last 3 years, and have adjusted accordingly. They just can't flip a switch and start accepting new policies that are now 'allowed' for one year. It a logistical nightmare.

Then you also have the problem of Obama rewriting law (HIS law), so he and the Dems don't get skewered in the '14 elections. (not that this has ever stopped Obama before).....

What a mess. Like I said, I'm sitting back with a big bag of popcorn, watching this all play out. You now have some MSM media calling out and questioning Obama. And now Bill Clinton lobs this grenade at Obama. I think Bill's statement is gonna break the dam on this one, as far as popular opinion. . You think this fiasco is ugly now? It's only getting started.....

This is horrible news for Obama. Thankfully, Romney won the 2012 election, so he's taking care of it now... but it does not reflect well in the one-term President Obama's legacy.

Just as Clinton's modest tax increases destroyed America forever; just as Bush found mountains of WMDs all over Iraq; just as Reagan's tax cuts boosted the poor and middle classes; just as Bush's tax cuts brought us all so much prosperity and jobs - we were so lucky to have a constitutional lean-government man unalterably opposed to nation building in the White House during those years.

I think Romney should convene a committee including Ken Lay and Phil Gramm, whose ethos of deregulation brought so much happiness to the faces of America's children.

AverageBear says

I seriously question how Obama is now going to allow formerly ineligible health insurance policies, now eligible for one year. Insurance agencies have been preparing for Obamacare for the last 3 years, and have adjusted accordingly. They just can't flip a switch and start accepting new policies that are now 'allowed' for one year. It a logistical nightmare.

Yeah, he picked the wrong time to go back to his first-term habit of caving in to the republicans. I actually thought he had changed. The first Romney debate was a wake up call for Obama, and he seemed more confident after that. He even held his ground through the whole "shutdown" fiasco. Now it feels like he's slipping again. I think Bill Clinton really screwed him.

I still think the insurers are doing what they can to derail this disruption to their gravy train, and they have successfully screwed Americans over collectively in a new, gigantic way by cancelling policies en masse which they could keep in force as grandfathered, right when the exchanges open (with the Federal fill in for foot dragging governors site faceplant at that.)

In some manner of Stockholm Syndrome, Americans have responded by siding with their hostage takers, the insurance lobby and big pharma, and lashing out at the rescue plan.

This will probably be in the psychology texts for the next half century.