patrick.net

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.

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 Thursday, November 21, 2013 __ Level is 102.5

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

I'm not convinced at the moment that Zimmerman is guilty of domestic violence. The whole case seems a bit fishy.

And this from a guy that is quite convinced that Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin.

Gold and silver to the moon ANY DAY NOW!

Chart of the day
http://www.chartoftheday.com/20131120.htm?H

Maybe they lost their innocence because of the JFK assassination.

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

Dunross is buying gold on margin.

Ditto, psychotic bot!

Welcome to Patnet, but you'll have to brush up on your personal insults.

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 22, 2013 __ Level is 102.8

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

Many still are, but for the most part - they were, and most likely financing operations at great rates, they buy equipment that lasts a long time like your car/truck, etc. ;)

thunderlips11 says

Gold and Silver doesn't look too great. Caterpillar has reduced profits and expectations, Mining companies aren't expanding operations.

China will stack the gold at any price until the weight of it's reserves becomes king.

This all plays out over time, this gold rush that we are in, is fairly new, and was initially over blown by ZIRP.

It's going to be awhile yet, takes time for big bets like ZIRP to play out.

bgamall4 says

You would think it would take demand for houses down, but it appears to be taking supply for houses down unless the cuts to the growth of SS cause people to be forced to sell after a few years.

Ever hear of a reverse mortgage?

marco says

".....we end up with a Republican, a Rockefeller Republican in blackface,
with Barack Obama.... a black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet
of corporate plutocrats.”

Dr. Cornel West
Princeton University

Dr. West thanks you because before Obama was elected, you right wingers would never give him the time of day, and now you quote him if he lambasts Obama. Sucker, 'cause not only is he playing you, but he's used your own biased ideology to drastically elevate his income and exposure by playing you.

When you talk to a black stranger, do you tell him/her that you know a black person and then ask if they know them? LOL

And it's gone

http://www.youtube.com/embed/-DT7bX-B1Mg

egads101 says

Robot mining technology will drop the price to $600 an ounce, when combined with unwinding of irrational inflation fears.

that is my buy point.

The same robot technology will be able to build houses for 20K a pop.

As a hedge, if gold gets to $1000 it would be a great buy.

Death by E-coli!

It's clear from this video that the biggest problem in the US is the fact that the bottom 25% of citizens don't pay any taxes.

bgamall4 says

tatupu70 says

It's clear from this video that the biggest problem in the US is the fact that the bottom 25% of citizens don't pay any taxes.

Only to a madman. You apparently are going crazy.

It's called sarcasm

Can't we spare a three-burrito dump for this guy's face?

Notice how all the fixes, which always lump Social Security and Medicare together, even though only one of them is broken, are always about kicking the muddle class and below?

GS via ZH at http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-10-25/japan-drowns-food-energy-inflation-chinas-liquidity-tinkering-continues-does-shibor- on 10/25/13

The national core CPI (excluding fresh foods) was up 0.7% yoy in September. Despite slightly narrowing from +0.8% in August, the figure remained high. The breakdown continues to shows high positive contribution from energy costs, which were up 7.4% yoy (contribution: +0.64 pp), but the figure was slightly lower compared to August (+9.2% yoy; +0.78 pp).

Aside from energy costs, foods (excluding fresh foods) turned positive at +0.1% yoy (August: 0.0% yoy) for the first time since July 2012, while prices of clothing/footwear continued to rise steadily (September: +0.7%, August: +0.8%).

Cultural/recreational durables (e.g. TV), which has been a significant driver of price decline, rose 0.1% yoy in August for the first time since January 1992, and continued to rise in September, at +0.4%. The September core-core figure (excluding foods and energy) pulled out from the negative territory for the first time since December 2008, at 0.0% (August: -0.1%).

Now guess what has been inflating quite significantly? Energy and fresh foods.

The sad part is that people have a tendency to look down the chain when determining the source of the problem. It's real easy to look at the folks who depend on government assistance and blame them for not contributing. It's an excellent distraction and keeps people from focusing their attention on the fact that we have billionaires who don't even come close to contributing their fair share. This type of government assistance goes all but unnoticed. All the pressure hits the middle. The powers that be like to pretend that people making $250 - 500k are the solution, as if this level of income is as high as it gets. However, many are just regular w-2 wage earners who find themselves too poor -- and too rich -- to be eligible for anything even resembling a break. So, they get to contribute the most, while those making a million a month enjoy laughably low effective tax rates. Speaking as a pretty conservative person, I think it's time we stop looking downward for solutions and instead look upwards. Try attacking the real problem rather than allowing ourselves to be distracted by an easy target who lives each day trying to keep his head above the poverty line. Just my 2 cents.