patrick.net

Homeboy says

thomaswong.1986 says

did I say i paid more or less ? im not the one spewing propaganda..

what happens to any one single person isnt going to extrapolate to the whole

population.... like I said your biased on this site so it is what is expected..

YOU'RE the one saying prices are going up, dipshit. What are you basing that on?

Homeboy, the CBO has been saying Obamacare will be a fiscal shit-storm for how long? And every time they update their #'s, it looks worse and worse. Prices are going up for those that are forced into Obamacare. And I am basing this on what the CBO says.... I can't wait for Nov '14.....

AverageBear says

Homeboy, the CBO has been saying Obamacare will be a fiscal shit-storm for how long? And every time they update their #'s, it looks worse and worse. Prices are going up for those that are forced into Obamacare. And I am basing this on what the CBO says.... I can't wait for Nov '14.....

What on earth are you talking about? The CBO says, and I quote:

"Taking the coverage provisions and other provisions together, CBO and JCT have estimated that the ACA will reduce deficits over the next 10 years and in the subsequent decade. "

Furthermore, they say that repealing ACA would INCREASE the deficit:

"Assuming that H.R. 6079 is enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2013, CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting that legislation would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013–2022 period."

And I don't see anywhere that the CBO says average premiums are increasing faster than they were increasing before ACA. Sorry, but you'll have to provide some evidence. Just saying it doesn't make it true.

Now, back to the question: THOMASWONG, AND ONLY THOMASWONG - On what evidence do you base your contention that prices are going up?

Homeboy says

Now, back to the question: THOMASWONG, AND ONLY THOMASWONG - On what evidence do you base your contention that prices are going up?

49-State Analysis: Obamacare To Increase Individual-Market Premiums
By Average Of 41%

One of the fundamental flaws of the Affordable Care Act is that, despite its name, it makes health insurance more expensive. Today, the Manhattan Institute released the most comprehensive analysis yet conducted of premiums under Obamacare for people who shop for coverage on their own. Here’s what we learned. In the average state, Obamacare will increase underlying premiums by 41 percent. As we have long expected, the steepest hikes will be imposed on the healthy, the young, and the male. And Obamacare’s taxpayer-funded subsidies will primarily benefit those nearing retirement—people who, unlike the young, have had their whole lives to save for their health-care needs.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/11/04/49-state-analysis-obamacare-to-increase-individual-market-premiums-by-avg-of-41-subsidies-flow-to-elderly/

Obamacare’s supporters argue that these rate increases aren’t important, because many people will be protected from them by federal subsidies.

Those subsidies aren’t free—they’re paid for by taxpayers–and so it is irresponsible for people to argue that subsidies somehow make irrelevant the underlying cost of health insurance. Nonetheless, it’s important to understand the impact of subsidies on Obamacare’s exchanges; later in September, we released a second iteration of the map to do just that.

thomaswong.1986 says

49-State Analysis: Obamacare To Increase Individual-Market Premiums

By Average Of 41%

This is complete crap. The methodology is ridiculous:

"In order to document rate changes, we first gathered pre-ACA insurance rates using the federal government's finder.healthcare.gov website. Our pre-ACA dataset consists of the five least expensive plans (by monthly premium) for the most populous zip code in every county. "

They took data from what plans were OFFERED, not what plans people HAD. And those are only the advertised rates - the website they used specifically states that you could be charged more than the amount shown. And why the "five least expensive plans"? That doesn't make any sense. You would need to know what people actually PAID, not what the five least expensive plans were on a government website that simply recommended private plans. PLUS, the 5 least expensive pre-ACA plans in California, for example, have deductibles between $12,000-$15,000, while the highest deductible post-ACA is $10,000. So how is that a fair comparison?

And then they say the ACA plans are more expensive, but don't take the subsidies into account. WTF?

Homeboy says

This is complete crap. The methodology is ridiculous:

than you have nothing to worry about ! after all its law now ... Right !

whats the worst that can happen ?

Homeboy says

And then they say the ACA plans are more expensive,

you of course will find a study that backs your argument .. right ?

perhaps you can post it...

whats the worst that can happen ?

thomaswong.1986 says

you of course will find a study that backs your argument .. right ?

I don't think you understand how this works. YOU are the one who claimed rates went up; therefore the onus is on YOU to prove it. This bogus "study" from The Manhattan Institute, which is nothing more than a right-wing think tank, does not prove it. The methodology is entirely wrong. Try again.

Homeboy says

I don't think you understand how this works. YOU are the one who claimed rates went up; therefore the onus is on YOU to prove it. This bogus "study" from The Manhattan Institute, which is nothing more than a right-wing think tank, does not prove it. The methodology is entirely wrong. Try again.

than you have nothing to worry about..

357 days till 2014 mid term elections.

thomaswong.1986 says

than you have nothing to worry about..

Of course I have nothing to worry about.

thomaswong.1986 says

357 days till 2014 mid term elections.

Yes, that is when the Elephant becomes an extinct animal.

I wonder if this if franchise-able? Perhaps I should pitch it on Shark Tank. I think they guy Kevin might invest, as long as he gets a cut on every rental.

Homeboy says

"Assuming that H.R. 6079 is enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2013, CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting that legislation would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013–2022 period."

Stop being dishonest. Post the rest of the story:

" we estimate that H.R. 6079 would reduce direct spending by $890 billion and reduce revenues by $1 trillion between 2013 and 2022, thus adding $109 billion to federal budget deficits over that period."

Reduce revenues means roll back the ACA tax increases plain and simple. You know that so why try to pass it off as savings? Increasing taxes isn't savings. Make you case on facts, not playing semantical games. Your credibility is getting lower all the time.

I think guys who bang dolls are still a few steps above Bronies and Furries.

Those guys are messed up.

bob2356 says

Stop being dishonest. Post the rest of the story:

" we estimate that H.R. 6079 would reduce direct spending by $890 billion and reduce revenues by $1 trillion between 2013 and 2022, thus adding $109 billion to federal budget deficits over that period."

What the FUCK are you talking about? How was I "dishonest"? Average Bear claimed the CBO said Obamacare was a "fiscal shit storm". They did NOT say that.

Fiscal - of or relating to government revenue, esp. taxes.

If it's revenue neutral, it is NOT a "fiscal shit storm". There is no "rest of the story". If you think I was claiming that there is no cost, you didn't read what I wrote. OF COURSE subsidies cost money. Duh. But they are PAID for, according to the CBO analysis. Engage your brain a bit before you throw out false charges of "dishonesty".

bob2356 says

Reduce revenues means roll back the ACA tax increases plain and simple.

Of course it does. Is that not obvious? Sheesh, I'm glad we agree on what "revenue" means.

bob2356 says

You know that so why try to pass it off as savings? Increasing taxes isn't savings. Make you case on facts, not playing semantical games. Your credibility is getting lower all the time.

That's a wonderful strawman argument you made up there. If I had actually said "increased taxes are savings", you would really have me there. Good thing I never said any such thing.

Look, this is a chart of wealth disparity in the U.S.:

Do I care if the wealthy have to pay slightly more in taxes so that we can all have a guaranteed right to health insurance? Nope. Yes, it costs more money to allow everyone to have insurance, rather than the old system of simply dumping anyone who becomes high risk and forcing them into bankruptcy. Think of the tax on the wealthy as a clawback of a tiny portion of the insane financial gains the elite has plundered from the economy.

Funny, of our two most loud-mouthed right wingers, zzyzzx and CaptainShuddup, one thinks ACA is TOO socialist, and the other thinks it is not socialist ENOUGH.

When the detractors can't even agree on the fundamental reason they are against something, it calls their whole position into question, don't you think?

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 Monday, November 11, 2013 __ Level is 100.7

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

Say! this post is just as fucking useless as it was the last time you bumped it, dumbfuck!

Define "Leadershit".
Include in your definition the absence of this from the public eye:
The Public Be Suckered
http://patrick.net/?p=1230886

ttsmyf says

egads101 says

Say! this post is just as fucking useless as it was the last time you bumped it, dumbfuck!

Define "Leadershit".

Include in your definition the absence of this from the public eye:

The Public Be Suckered

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

LoL! 10,700 views and counting
Buyers Beware!

False flag.

Call it Crazy says

even if it takes a change to the law,

EVEN IF?

STFU Bubba and resume traversing 3rd-world countries and continue telling them how you single handedly abolished their poverty and hunger problems, from the podium in the conclave to those 3 tyrannical people, after getting there in a mostly limo and SUV convoy.

The Weekly 'Standard'. LOL

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

Quigley says

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

Ya think???

And maybe some hype by selfish individuals.

Plans usually term at the end of the year. Are they going to let people grandfather into old plans forever?

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 Tuesday, November 12, 2013 __ Level is 100.5

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

What should Obama do, MANDATE that the insurers issue policies and dictate their terms?

Because, then he actually WOULD be a dictator. Funny the way Republicans feel free to fault Obama for failing to do this, when they've spent over 5 years hating him for being a socialist dictator who shoved Obamacare down America's throat.

Automan Empire says

What should Obama do, MANDATE that the insurers issue policies and dictate their terms?

Because, then he actually WOULD be a dictator. Funny the way Republicans feel free to fault Obama for failing to do this, when they've spent over 5 years hating him for being a socialist dictator who shoved Obamacare down America's throat.

Once he forces everyone to participate, all rules go out the window. Why do you hate Fascism?

Automan Empire says

What should Obama do, MANDATE that the insurers issue policies and dictate their terms?

No, I think Republicans would just want Obama to remove the MANDATED minimum requirement for the bronze, silver and gold plans, and then insurance companies would naturally offer whatever they were offering before.

upisdown says

The Weekly 'Standard'. LOL

the liberals are silent on the matter...

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

I think you'll find that British savers (and consequently the average tax payer) were the ones swindled by Icelandic banks, you sad conspiracy nut.

You pathetic cockroach, the British had risk. They took the risk. What do you want, risk free? When you invest understand the risk. Trouble is the financial order is tied to derivatives so they refuse to allow risk and countries that should default cannot. You are pathetic.

The bloody article you link to talks about Icelandic banks peddling unrealistic interest rates to UK savers. The Icelandic government initially said that they'd meet the financial obligations of their banks and then reneged on that, leaving UK tax payers to foot the bill, and yet your headline says that Gordon Brown betrayed Iceland. FFS, you are one stupid so-and-so.

How did Iceland save Great Britain? IIRC Iceland was occupied by the Brits and later the US during the war...

Call it Crazy says

“There’s no way we can sugarcoat it anymore, and I don’t say that as a political shot at anyone.”

might as well skip the sugar and go straight to meth and crack...

thunderlips11 says

I think guys who bang dolls are still a few steps above Bronies and Furries.

Those guys are messed up.

I learn something new every day, now I know what a "bronie" is. Ewww!

Yaaaawwwwnnnn, just how many more of these are you going to post this week?

I take it that you know exactly how annoying that you are and how little attention is paid to you, otherwise you'd find a more effective way to be obnoxious by now.

Vicente says

What's with all the masculine features?

I can hear the one on the right now,,,"do I look fat?"

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 13, 2013 __ Level is 100.9

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

Let's see, she could ... no not for that. Well, maybe ... no, ew, no never no way. Okay then she could, no she couldn't, she wouldn't and I wouldn't want her to. So there you go, no way, no how, never, ever, ever, ever, no matter what she did or didn't do - she won't get my vote.

The populace has voted. Death! Death! Death!

Fuck bitch piss cunt spooge cock-puking ass fuck shitter!

That is: No.

As long as she promises not to go nude-she has my vote.