patrick.net

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.

John McDonald says

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.

When I lost my insurance, the first thing I did was renew my passport. I would rather be treated at Bumrungrad in Thailand than the vast majority of MRSA ridden American hospitals.
I told my wife when I have my heart attack (hey, I am an American Male, let's be real), don't call the ambulance, take me right to the airport.

John McDonald says

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.

Oooh the big bad single payer. You don't have a clue what you are talking about. The US has more death panels and health care rationing than any country on earth. It's called the insurance companies.

I lived in three of those awful socialist single payer countries. Lived in as in permanent residency and/or citizenship. I used the medical system in all three. I can honestly say you are so clueless that I can't even begin to explain it to you. I will say that I'm going to have to come back to the states in the very near future for to deal with aging parents for a while and I'm already dreading the thought of dealing with the US medical system.

We thunderlips11 says

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

Out of of morbid curiosity I checked and the insurance was not inexpensive.

The deductibles are good because they define the plans as High Deductible Health Plans for IRS purposes which allow the use of Health Savings Accounts funded by pre-tax dollars. Assuming you're a middle class Californian paying 28% Federal tax and 9.3% state income tax the inability to use a HSA means all your planned medical expenditures like glasses cost 59% more than if you could pay for those goods with pre-tax money.

You cannot pay insurance premiums (except for Medicare, COBRA, and long-term-care insurance) with HSA money; other cynics would probably be right in suggesting that's intentional to keep people in expensive employer-based plans which are paid for with pre-tax money.

The least expensive plan I could get for my wife and I is $700/month with a $5000 deductible ($10K family) and 40% co-insurance with a $6350 ($12.7K family) out-of-pocket maximum.

Silver is $933/month with a $2000 deductible and 30% co-insurance with $6350 out of pocket maximum. This plan makes no sense - assuming a 28% Federal tax rate and 9.3% state tax rate you'd be better off with the bronze plan and setting up an Health Savings Account which would accumulate $4452 a year (you get to use pre-tax dollars which means the $233 you'd have post-tax is $371 pre-tax) with the difference in price disregarding investment gains. IOW with this plan there's a small window of health situations in which you'd come out ahead in the first year

Gold would run $1100 a month with "no deductible" and 20% co-insurance up to $6350. This makes less sense than the silver plan because it's no longer a HDHP which is a 60% penalty on things like glasses and dental care for many people. It costs $7655 more than the bronze plan. With only one person developing health problems you'd be guaranteed to spend more because the bronze plan has a $6350 per-person out of pocket maximum.

Platinum would be $1263/month with no-deductible and 10% co-insurance up to $4000. $10,775 more than the bronze plan. D-U-M-B. The chances of requiring health spending where you'd come out ahead versus the bronze plan are miniscule - either you're going to be way under or way over.

My employer provided plan runs both of us about $1000/month before the tax break for a $250 deductible ($500 for a family), $3000 out-of-pocket maximum in-network ($6000), and 10% co-insurance although if I had to pick up the whole tab it'd be $627/month in take-home pay which is less than the Bronze plan and it goes with a Flexible Spending Account that I can use to pay for things like glasses with pre-tax dollars although I can't save that across plan-years to take care of unexpected costs up to the maximum.

I am not impressed with the ACA options.

And once again, this is what Bgamall is deleting:

"So let me see. You think that a vertical column of windows shattering is what indicates the required squibs for bringing down that building? Ha, ha, ha. You really think that, do you? Not that it is directly connected to the internal collapse in that part of the building and the subsequent air pressure forcing out air and debris as the collapse progressed. Seriously, your argument is poor even for you. You really are claiming that the demolition experts placed a long vertical line of squibs up one side of the building to bring it down. That's your claim. And that apparently these squibs were silent when they were detonated. God, you are comedy gold."

One work around to the "health" insurance racketeers is the Direct Primary Care movement.
Imagine, if you will, a doctors office that takes no insurance. None. Zero.
Minimal office personnel overhead. No waiting on payment from the govt. or the malevolent cartels.
It is similar to Concierge Medicine but without as big an annual payment, typically. Doctor visits for 45-60 bucks in most of the country.
Typical rates can be seen here:
http://neucare.net/blog/2013/8/16/new-all-inclusive-memberships

Coupled with a very high catastrophic care (what they used to call "hospital insurance" and which used to be the only kind there was) policy, this would be my ideal.
If you remove the insurance component a lot of first line health care is really not that expensive.
I am sure they will move against this nascent model if it starts to grow much, and make cash for service illegal in the medical realm.
Imagine their feeling of disempowerment not getting to decide if I need a Prostate exam or not.

HydroCabron says

Straw Man says

MershedPerturders says

Bitcoin is not controlled by banks, it's controlled by whomever has the money to purchase hashing power. It's the dumbest thing since the Dutch Tulip Mania.

It's also so untraceable that when somebody steals it you can't even prove you had the money in the first place.

Wait a minute.

I have $375 I'm cash in my wallet: If I get mugged, I can just tell the cops, and I'll get my money back?

facepalm.jpg

bgamall4 says

And notice, Bigsby, that the explosions were detonations. Trying to make explosions not detonations like you do shows what a damn fool you are. Notice the pulverization and white smoke that accompanies all implosions. And, btw, the 3 buildings on 9/11 had those same traits. You are an idiot cockroach.

Notice 'the explosions were detonations'?
bgamall4 says

Squibs were observed, Bigsby. Smoke being blown out symmetrically was observed. You can make fun of it if you want, cockroach, but here is another example of the exact same thing roach. Some squibs are horizontal, some are verticle. Some buildings like the Towers had explosions prior to collapse. The Towers was sophisticated, but many of the same effects are seen in this compilation:

What is it with you? Do you want to disprove your own claims? You've just posted up a bunch of demolition videos that directly refute your claims. Which of those buildings were brought down by squibs planted in a single long vertical line (and nothing else) half way up the building? None of those videos show anything remotely similar, and they all make, how can I put it, a loud bloody noise, something sorely lacking in any of your videos.

debyne says

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

That doesn't even make any sense. All the fraud in the system is because of fee for service encourages it. Eliminate fee for service with a capitation/salary arrangement (the way the rest of the world does it) and there's no avenue for fraud.

Don't you understand the more a doctor treats you the more he gets paid? Look at the differences in treatment between practices that can refer to testing/diagnostic centers they own and the practices that can't or don't. Shocking. Sometimes the best medicine is not doing anything. You obviously don't grasp the fine distinction between quantity and quality.

bob2356 says

Don't you understand the more a doctor treats you the more he gets paid? Look at the differences in treatment between practices that can refer to testing/diagnostic centers they own and the practices that can't or don't. Shocking. Sometimes the best medicine is not doing anything. You obviously don't grasp the fine distinction between quantity and quality.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Having the gov't pay for our care vs the private sector has nothing to do with fee for service. The private sector is already starting to make strides away from fee for service, so your argument makes no sense. The private sector will always ultimately find better, faster, cheaper solutions than the gov't will ever dream of doing.

it's untraceable. he got sloppy and posted his real name.

i'm surprised that you being the conspiracy theory expert hadn't know about this.

the History Channel made a documentary claiming LBJ was behind the whole thing but the higher power made them stop airing it. LBJ was bought by the Military Industrial Complex and organized the whole thing.

http://www.rense.com/general76/hunt.htm

bgamall4 says

You misunderstand the respect with which JFK was given by the American people.

The American people dont respect cronies who have ties to organized crime like the Mafia's, Sam Giancana, which the Kennedy's have been neck deep in for decades past. Perhaps we are better off with Kennedy's clan being out of power.

Since you a big conspiracy buff.. how do explain JFKs ties to the Mafia ?
Why did Kennedy need the help of the Mafia and equally corrupt unions to get elected?

There is your answer...