patrick.net

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Comptroller says

debyne says

This bubble will never stop. We're all going to be priced out forever by the boogeyman who lays golden eggs.

Yes, yes, yes, and then the RENTFUCK will come for your asshole, turgid and righteous and rip out your fucking asshole with savage rents and unrelenting increases. You don't own, your fucking life it over, ASSHOLE! Suck a pistol or pay the fucking rent!

Hold on...let me get out my babbling retard decoder ring...

bgamall4 says

Disclaimer: This is not intended to make fun in any way of those who have died from bugs in the drinking water in humid climes.

Ah, political correctness.

CL says

They'll get him on tax evasion, or shooting a white chick.

What do Al Capone, OJ, and Zimmerman have in common?

If the state wants a conviction bad enough, say because of public image, they'll get one on some charge. That's why everything is a criminal offense, but such offenses are rarely enforced. They are there just so that the state can arrest anyone at any time for some reason. Selective enforcement couples with over-criminalization is essentially the power to imprison innocent people.

Granted, none of the above were innocent, but plenty of innocent people with inconvenient political views get the same treatment.

How is he a GOP icon if he's a registered Democrat who voted for Obama?

Homeboy says

bob2356 says

Give up on this one, you are just looking foolish at this point. I cherry picked a time frame you say. Why did you choose to compare the 9 years before aca was signed plus the year aca was signed to the year the aca was singed plus the 4 years after. That's pretty damn big cherry picking. Come on.

Um, I didn't. ACA became law in 2010, genius. What were you saying about "looking foolish"? LOL.

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

I'm off year with a quick glance at the chart. You averaged 2000-2009 vs average 2010-2014. 10 years vs 5 years is still cherry picking big time, especially with the greatest economic downturn since the depression at year 5. As per your own words "it only makes sense to compare average rate increases". But it only makes sense for the same time frame.

Homeboy says

So let's get to the point, shall we? The "skyrocketing" or "explosion" of rates that has been claimed by the right, is not supported by the data.

Is that clear to you?

Thank you, you have finally clarified which position is your final one. That was like pulling teeth from a live tiger. I accept, and always have accepted that aca didn't cause rates to skyrocket (especially since I've argued long and hard aca didn't effect rates 2010-2012 at all). I reject and always will reject your now disavowed position that aca improved rates 2010-1014. Is that clear enough? Rate increases in the 5 years before aca were falling at about the same rate as the 5 years after. It's called a trend line. It's a shame you don't know the difference between passing a law and implementing a law. You would realize how utterly impossible it was for aca to actually effect rates so quickly after passage.

That doesn't mean anything was fixed. Despite your insane insistence (in spite of repeated vehement denials along with multiple examples of my postings refuting this) that I believe bush fixed health care I never said that. I've posted many,many times nothing is fixed. So if you keep attributing this crazy idea to me mean can I use the S word now? I really really want to use the S word.

Homeboy says

Once again, you are denigrating the law based not on any DATA, but simply on theoretical grounds. In other words, you are arguing that it CANNOT work, by its very nature.

Read the CBO and Medicare reports. They contain lots and lots of data. The bottom line in both reports is aca won't do anything to lower the cost of health care spending increases to below the inflation rate. Nothing theoretical there at all. Aca MAY work just fine getting uninsured insurance, that remains to be seen. Aca will work just great at shifting around who pays. It CANNOT work by it's very nature at lowering overall health care costs since it doesn't address the issue. What isn't clear to you on that?

Once again you can't seem to differentiate between health care insurance premiums and health care spending. You chart that you are so proud of is insurance premiums, not health care expenditures. Try this from forbes.

See any big effects of aca on total spending? I don't. Does this qualify as data? Here's an even more interesting one, although not on subject, but shows the pitfalls of fee for service pretty clearly.

elvis says

Congratulations to Barrack Barrackovitch Obama on his latest award!! Destroying America, one step at a time. Nice going Comrade.

lakermania says

How is he a GOP icon if he's a registered Democrat who voted for Obama?

Exactly!

But go hang out on with Freepers, bring up his name, and watch them defend him.

bgamall4 says

lakermania says

How is he a GOP icon if he's a registered Democrat who voted for Obama?

He is an NRA icon and they are wildly Republican.

Maybe they are republican because the democrats keep trying to make gun sale, use, and ownership illegal. What other choice do gun owners have?

What's so bad about Larry?

Sure he's a misogynist, and an elitist, and an arrogant jerk whose poop never stinks.

But apart from that.....

bgamall4 says

Blurtman says

You and the 99% however cannot have digital credits transferred into your account through the issuance of fraudulent documents. You typically have to trade your time and efforts for some small amount of transferred digital credits. And the amount of digital credits that are transferred into your account for your time and effort becomes less and less.

So you must be in the 1 percent? Ok, but not i the .01 percent who rule the world so they could take your money too.

Just remember, when you deposit money into a bank it is a loan. You are loaning. I should be able to loan or not loan my money. But in a cashless society I would not have that choice.

It would prevent bank runs, but runs happen when banks screw up. If they did, you would be a sitting duck like those guys in Cyprus. It is totalitarian to require cashless.

Well, these percentages are of little interest to me. Viva la revolucion! Death to the bankers!

GOP ICON Zimmerman

Zimmerman is a registered Democrat.

As for the "Canada has proven" thing above, it's important to note that the US housing bubble was a primary cause and not effect of our prosperity of the previous decade [Insert obligatory "nobody gets this!" here], while Canada's rise is more an effect (nation of 35M pulling wealth out of 1/3 of a continent, nominal military expenses let alone waste, efficient health care sector, etc) than a cause, AFAIK.

Canada spends ~half per-capita on health care, and if my thesis is right, that $300/mo per-capita cost savings will end up eventually in higher in rents and home values for them in the end, simply because real estate is the source and sink of all wealth.

(that's my thesis at least!)

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 Wednesday, November 20, 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

egads101 says

That graph was in the Wall Street journal in what, 2005? Their buy versus rent calculator has been online for seven years.

What the fuck is hidden?? Nothing!

And, if you love that graph so much, update it to today dumbfuck. It is case shiller data, which is publicly available, do you not know how to use excel?

The first link in my thread is to
http://showrealhist.com/yTRIAL.html
There you can click on "updated". EZ!

lakermania says

How is he a GOP icon if he's a registered Democrat who voted for Obama?

Because they all like him. A lot ! (for some reason).

Christ on a stick: John F. Kennedy is a Republican icon, because he cut taxes on the pigs, even though when he was alive they called him a communist destroyer of America.

Amazing how housing bulls keep slumming on such an archaic meaningless thread.....Unless there's more than meets the ....

No, I mean we would not have put up such a fight over mental health subsidies if we had known your kind was this sick....

CL says

SoftShell says

This is damning evidence.

John Bailo says

Voting Form Shows George Zimmerman Is A Registered Democrat

http://www.ibtimes.com/voting-form-shows-george-zimmerman-registered-democrat-confounding-message-pushed-left-430738

You mean because you wouldn't have worked so hard to exculpate Zimmermonster if you'd known?

SoftShell says

we would not have put up such a fight over mental health subsidies

What's a mental health "subsidy"? I'm picturing paying SoftShell Inc. to limit his reposting of tired talking points.

That works with me....
Give Patrick five bucks in my name so I can become a "premium" member!

Vicente says

SoftShell says

we would not have put up such a fight over mental health subsidies

What's a mental health "subsidy"? I'm picturing paying SoftShell Inc. to limit his reposting of tired talking points.

It's your plan...shit...we passed the fucker and you still didn't find out what's in it??

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101166468

All plans, including bronze, must cover standard benefits like prescription drugs, maternity care and mental health treatment.

Vicente says

SoftShell says

we would not have put up such a fight over mental health subsidies

What's a mental health "subsidy"?

bob2356 says

10 years vs 5 years is still cherry picking big time

No it's not. It's an AVERAGE. Using more data points makes the average MORE accurate, not less. But I cannot use more than 5 years of post-ACA data, since only 5 years have elapsed. You don't understand what cherry-picking means.

bob2356 says

Thank you, you have finally clarified which position is your final one. That was like pulling teeth from a live tiger.

No it wasn't. I've said it several times. You were just too busy trying to play your little troll "gotcha" game to listen to me. Glad you finally listened, though.

bob2356 says

. I accept, and always have accepted that aca didn't cause rates to skyrocket (

Finally. That was like pulling teeth from a live tiger.

bob2356 says

I reject and always will reject your now disavowed position that aca improved rates 2010-1014. Is that clear enough?

Yet another strawman. I NEVER said ACA improved rates. I challenge you to quote any time I EVER said that.

O.K., I'm gonna play a new game here. Everytime you write a strawman, I am going to write one back to you. Clear?
bob2356 says

It's a shame you don't know the difference between passing a law and implementing a law. You would realize how utterly impossible it was for aca to actually effect rates so quickly after passage.

It's a shame you believe that ACA has caused rates to skyrocket. The data don't support your contention that ACA has caused rates to skyrocket AT ALL.

bob2356 says

That doesn't mean anything was fixed. Despite your insane insistence (in spite of repeated vehement denials along with multiple examples of my postings refuting this) that I believe bush fixed health care I never said that.

Then, for the third time, if you don't believe the problem was solved, why do you believe it's relevant that rate increases slowed in the mid 2000s? Why do you think it's valid to arbitrarily choose that point when citing pre-ACA rate increases?

bob2356 says

Read the CBO and Medicare reports. They contain lots and lots of data.

Cop out.

bob2356 says

It CANNOT work by it's very nature at lowering overall health care costs since it doesn't address the issue. What isn't clear to you on that?

It's abundantly clear what you are arguing. I am simply saying that your argument is theoretical only, not based on any facts or data. Hint: you wrote "It CANNOT work by it's very nature at lowering overall health care costs". You keep arguing that it CANNOT work, and I keep pointing that out, yet you keep denying it. This would be funny if it weren't so sad.

bob2356 says

Once again you can't seem to differentiate between health care insurance premiums and health care spending.

That's really weird that you would claim I can't differentiate when YOU are the one who is conflating those two things. We were discussing insurance premiums when you brought up total healthcare spending out of the blue, indicating that YOU are the one who lacks the ability to differentiate. Again, this would be funny if it weren't sad.

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Comptroller says

Stuffing Guns in Girlfriends Face

Face is back on the menu! Now you can stuff your gun there too.

Bellingham Bill says

As for the "Canada has proven" thing above, it's important to note that the US housing bubble was a primary cause and not effect of our prosperity of the previous decade [Insert obligatory "nobody gets this!" here], while Canada's rise is more an effect (nation of 35M pulling wealth out of 1/3 of a continent, nominal military expenses let alone waste, efficient health care sector, etc) than a cause, AFAIK.

Canada bubble is based on Fraud...

http://patrick.net/?p=1234409

As far as Health Care... not as efficient as some claim.

"Dr. Brian Day was once quoted as saying "This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two-to-three years."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada#Criticisms

egads101 says

ttsmyf says

The first link in my thread is to

http://showrealhist.com/yTRIAL.html

There you can click on "updated". EZ!

which shows the same graph up til 2009...

we are almost in 2014, update the graph dumbass, or don't post it any more!

DO AS I SAID!!!
Click on
'updated'
below the NYT chart!
You will get to

which is Real Homes thru 2013 Q3

Bigby, I was only going by what egads wrote in this thread. My ideas, suggestions, predictions (whatever you want to call them) was based soley on the info from this thread. I never read any of underwaterman's previous comments, nor knew him.

So that being said, i have no idea how underwaterman 'framed' his argument, or gave more details to his gold-buying binge.

But when egads starts antagonizing me, by calling me a 'dumb-fuck', a 'fuckin' idiot' or 'fucking retard', guess what? I'm going to defend myself.

I find it amusing how people turn into "Tough Guys" when given the cloak of anonymity. Egads may be right on what gold will do in the short-term, but it doesn't excuse him from being an asshole.

Is there a connection between Stock Market performance and Housing performance? This year saw price pretty strong increases in both areas.

I myself prefer hard physical gold and silver to gold stock certificates. Collect a few coins and here and there but not everything invested in it.

elvis says

Socialism=Fail

Liberalism=Fail

Statism=Fail

DemocRatism=Fail

Communism=Fail

Fraud at the highest level of government=Fail.

American Conservatives= Failing since 1776

As has been stated ad nauseum the upper end of the market have benefited big time from cheap money as seen with the high end retailers (Tiffany's, Barneys, Harry Winston, etc.) the stock market, real estate, collectables (Christies).

To say this is driven my fundamental economic growth is absurd, er ah Keynesian.

Homeboy says

bob2356 says

ACA has SLOWED the costs of premium increases? How is that possible? There is only one months data.

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 NEVER said ACA improved rates.

Uh, yep you did. Then you changed your argument to didn't make rates skyrocket. I guess you next move is to claim "they already slowed" and "IMPROVEMENT" in the same paragraph are unrelated. Wouldn't it be much easier to just say I was wrong?

Homeboy says

bob2356 says

It's a shame you don't know the difference between passing a law and implementing a law. You would realize how utterly impossible it was for aca to actually effect rates so quickly after passage.

It's a shame you believe that ACA has caused rates to skyrocket. The data don't support your contention that ACA has caused rates to skyrocket AT ALL

Since you want to issue challenges, feel free to show where I ever said aca would cause rates to skyrocket. I've argued long and hard aca didn't effect rates at all. Read the paragraph above, the part where I say impossible to affect rates so quickly. If you're going to attribute something to me don't use my quote that directly contradicts you. I'm getting close to using the T word.

Homeboy says

Then, for the third time, if you don't believe the problem was solved, why do you believe it's relevant that rate increases slowed in the mid 2000s? Why do you think it's valid to arbitrarily choose that point when citing pre-ACA rate increases?

It's not relevant at all. The meaningfulness of decrease in insurance rate rises has always been your idée fixe not mine. There is nothing arbitrary about comparing equivalent time frames. It's really the only valid way to do it. Why did you pick 2000? That's an arbitrary date. If more data points are better than why not go back to 1970 or 1950?

Homeboy says

It's abundantly clear what you are arguing. I am simply saying that your argument is theoretical only, not based on any facts or data. Hint: you wrote "It CANNOT work by it's very nature at lowering overall health care costs".

Well if extensive reports from Medicare and the CBO, along with detailed analysis from entities like Forbes and Rand don't satisfy your definition of facts and data, then I have to agree, to you it will always be theoretical. Rah, Rah obamacare.

zzyzzx says

That's really weird that you would claim I can't differentiate when YOU are the one who is conflating those two things. We were discussing insurance premiums when you brought up total healthcare spending out of the blue, indicating that YOU are the one who lacks the ability to differentiate. Again, this would be funny if it weren't sad.

The original post was about keeping policies. You added premiums to the discussion "out of the blue". I added to the discussion that aca addresses the symptoms (insurance premiums) not the problem (health care spending). Was I somehow forbidden to expand on the the topic? Who died and left you king?

bob2356 says

Uh, yep you did.

Um, nope I didn't.

bob2356 says

Then you changed your argument to didn't make rates skyrocket.

Prove it.

bob2356 says

I guess you next move is to claim "they already slowed" and "IMPROVEMENT" in the same paragraph are unrelated.

That's a lie. I said the RATE OF INCREASE slowed. You removed the words "rate of increase." Nice try. If you would try to actually discuss this instead of playing "gotcha" games and failing, you wouldn't embarrass yourself so much.

I am not, nor have I, made the claim that ACA has caused insurance premiums to go down on overall average, at least not yet.

I don't know why that isn't good enough for you.

bob2356 says

Since you want to issue challenges, feel free to show where I ever said aca would cause rates to skyrocket.

You didn't. Apparently you did not read my post. I clearly said that whenever YOU make up a strawman about me, I will make up a strawman about you. Tit for tat.

bob2356 says

Homeboy says

Then, for the third time, if you don't believe the problem was solved, why do you believe it's relevant that rate increases slowed in the mid 2000s? Why do you think it's valid to arbitrarily choose that point when citing pre-ACA rate increases?

It's not relevant at all.

AH HA!!! Then it is disingenuous of you to start your accounting of pre-ACA rates in the year AFTER the double-digit increases, and then say "certainly not double digit", as you did.

bob2356 says

There is nothing arbitrary about comparing equivalent time frames. It's really the only valid way to do it.

This is utter bullshit. You're just making that up to justify your cherry-picking. Do you understand what an average is? The number of data points is not the deciding factor. That's why statistics work. Let's say the average number of children in families with children is 1.86. If you only look at one family, it is a certainty that they won't have 1.86 children. If you average 1,000 families, you will likely come close to 1.86. If you average a million families, you will come even closer to 1.86. There is no point at which it becomes LESS accurate to look at MORE data points.

Let me rephrase that: It is NEVER more accurate to look at FEWER data points when calculating an average. Therefore, for you to do so in the name of accuracy is bullshit. Therefore you are cherry picking. Period.

Now, why did I pick the years that I picked? Because that's all the data there was. Simple.

bob2356 says

Was I somehow forbidden to expand on the the topic? Who died and left you king?

Huh? YOU were the one claiming I "can't differentiate", when YOU were the one throwing a different subject into the discussion. I merely responded to your stupid accusation. I didn't say you were forbidden to do anything.

Jesus. Enough with the silly "gotcha" games.

bob2356 says

Well if extensive reports from Medicare and the CBO, along with detailed analysis from entities like Forbes and Rand don't satisfy your definition of facts and data, then I have to agree, to you it will always be theoretical.

You didn't present any data. Simply making an oblique reference to data that might exist, after the fact, is not presenting data.