patrick.net

curious2 says

The only part of the official title that was actually true was the last A. It was an Act. All else in the title was patently false. The fact that you would parrot a clearly false title, because you don't get past the headline, says it would be worthless to debate you.

I find it befuddling that you seem to not understand what I just said. You're the one getting all giddy ramping up the anti-obamacare crap. If I wanted to talk about Obamacare, then I would have taken part in an actual ACA-related post, which this one was not. Do you understand the concept of simple debate? A subject is started and people who have something to contribute to it simply state their opinions about that particular subject. I'm not going to repeat myself. I already stated my points against the ones you made before.

So fuck that. Lets talk about Robocop instead.

edvard2 says

... and once again this post has fallen off the deep end into a bunch of rambling nonsense.

Remain calm,,,deep breaths. Now crush up a pill and insuffocate it.

Now you are cured!

God bless heritagefoundationcare!

I just love how McDonald's is TOLERATING this political trespassing.

While you are free to protest out on Public property, provided you have the proper permits, you are not allowed to go inside and disrupt businesses.

errc says

Remain calm,,,deep breaths. Now crush up a pill and insuffocate it.

Now you are cured!

God bless heritagefoundationcare!

Clearly our education system is failing us when above statements show such voids in intelligence.

Those people only have a job because Ben Bernanke printed up billions and gave it to McDonald's just minutes before Obama did one of his dictator press banned political monologues, where he announced out of the blue that McDonald's would be hiring 80,000 people in a time, when McDonald's was being killed by the "Say no to food" campaign that Michelle Obama was promoting across the country.

We all suck so what's the point.
The Liberals tried to convince that everyone was a winner, but losers realized that if they are a winner too for not even trying, then we all must suck. I mean if there is no benchmark to go by.

I refuse to work with the losers they suck, they know it, I know it, the top execs who needs action knows it. Their stupidity allows me to work at home in a bathrobe nursing a pot of coffee.

curious2 says

Even the federal government's own projections showed Obamneycare would increase spending even above prior law.

Congressional Budget Office says

Those amounts do not reflect the total budgetary impact of the ACA. That legislation includes many other provisions that, on net, will reduce budget deficits. 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.

Iosef V HydroCabron says

deficits

reflect the gap between taxes and spending. Obamneycare raised both taxes and spending. Also, most [updated - see below] of the federally mandated spending is unfunded, i.e. off budget, and not counted in the deficits. And, the accounting gimmick about double-counting the same $ as deficit reduction and Medicare extension has been acknowledged even by HHS, i.e. you can't spend the same money twice, despite the appearance of that result in the deficit and Medicare projections; the legislation was drafted to manipulate CBO scoring into producing a result that even HHS acknowledged was not possible. The fact remains that even the federal projections show the legislation increases spending even above prior law. That was the point of enacting it.

If you want to look at houses that are unoccupied (ex: foreclosure, corporate sale, etc) that's where you need a real estate agent.

curious2 says

Iosef V HydroCabron says

deficits

reflect the gap between taxes and spending. Obamneycare raised both taxes and spending. Also, most of the federally mandated spending is unfunded, i.e. off budget, and not counted in the deficits. The fact remains that even the federal projections show the legislation increases spending even above prior law. That was the point of enacting it.

I missed the meaning of your remark, because the objection seems so minor to me.

Sure, government spending can be bad, but we're talking of spending on fixing busted human beings that is going to happen one way or another, whether through private or public methods.

If the public way is less efficient - this has been proven manifestly untrue in several foreign health-care systems - then that's bad. (I have an idea that ACA will be less efficient, FWIW, because the ACA is to some degree a welfare system for health insurance companies, but that question has yet to be settled.)

But why object, per se, to government handling dollars that will be spent anyway? The issue is whether the total efficiency of the system will get worse or better.

So, yes, "even the federal government's own projections showed Obamacare would increase spending" is not something that anyone outside a coma would deny. Why use that statement to argue against the law?

It's like saying that "Even the Pentagon admits its budget will be spent on armaments and troop training."

If you can reduce the cost of selling from 6% to 4%, that is still 2% in your pocket for some extra work.

Research who sells homes in your area using Redfin which shows you the listing agent and the buying agent.

Open houses: the one that matters is the one for brokers, have a buffett with drinks and appear open to change. You want to identify agents who have buyers for your area.

Offer 3.5 % to 4% to the selling agent. If your area has 5% rather than 6% because of high prices, 3% should be enough. 3% is what agents get to show you a new home development, sometimes less.

Lawyers depend on your area. In many cases not needed in California, but select a good title company you can work with.

Know the local splits on closing costs. It varries with location. For example, in Sacramento the seller pays almost all while elsewhere there is a split.

See if you can find someone who has done it to find out how they did.

You are going to do a lot of research. It will take much of your time. But a lot of the time spent, you end up doing even with an agent.

curious2 says

most of the federally mandated spending is unfunded, i.e. off budget, and not counted in the deficits

this is wrong.

but what is making the deficits smaller than they should be is the ongoing QE.

Green is the actual YOY deficit with QE factored in/out

Purple is YOY Fed bond holding increase (aka QE)

Blue is total YOY deficit -- including trust fund growth, largely interest (printed bonds) at this point.

Red is YOY debt held by the public, (and the Fed is part of the 'public' here).

Since the Fed pays the interest it gets back to the Treasury, it's OK to ignore their holdings for now.

Iosef V HydroCabron says

spending on fixing busted human beings

No, you've missed the larger point, we're talking about maximizing power (including revenue) for the patronage networks that wrote the legislation, which everyone else calls spending. Any effect on health is incidental, and often negative. If they can break you or otherwise make you worse off and then make more money treating the problem they created or worsened, then that's "creating jobs" (and revenue) from their POV. That is the debate on this thread, i.e. the OP presents one party as evil because it doesn't want to spend more on stuff that is often harmful, and implies the other party is wonderful because they always want to spend more on stuff that is often harmful. It's a bit sad how when they put "health" in the title, the partisans run with that like cheerleaders, Rah-Rah spell H-E-L-L (oops), damn the numbers full speed ahead. If they want to play their partisan games I wish they would stick to issues that people's lives don't depend on, e.g. bridges to nowhere.

Bellingham Bill says

curious2 says

most of the federally mandated spending is unfunded, i.e. off budget, and not counted in the deficits

this is wrong.

Actually you have a point there, "most" depends on whether Medicare is included in the general budget. So, if we count Medicare in the budget, as we should, then I should replace "most" with "much." The employer and individual mandates are obviously off budget. If I may make an observation, this is a basic difference between thinking persons and partisan drones. When someone points out an actual error, I acknowledge and correct it. The partisans just keep parroting their party lines, without learning anything.

CaptainShuddup says

The Liberals tried to convince that everyone was a winner

Dude.

I'm a total liberal, and I think you are not a winner. You deserve to lose because of your intellectual and character deficits. You do not deserve to have your self-esteem boosted, nor do you deserve a helping hand from the government.

Now how do you spin that as Kumbaya feel-goodism?

curious2 says

Any effect on health is incidental, and often negative.

Why didn't you put it that way, then?

If you're arguing that most hospitals should be closed, and that most doctors should be in other professions, then go with god.

I'm sympathetic to the argument that the medical profession is completely overrated to the point of worship, and that many doctors should be out of business, but there are plenty of statistics correlating longer, not shorter, lifespans, as well as lower infant mortality, with greater availability of medical care.

I can't believe I'm arguing this point.

How do you feel about the Enlightenment, or the germ theory of disease? Scams?

Iosef V HydroCabron says

How do you feel about the Enlightenment, or the germ theory of disease? Scams?

I'm a big fan of the Enlightenment, especially the part where people are allowed to live their own lives according to what they believe instead of being conscripted into the latest fad religion e.g. Obamneycare. Remember the first five Presidents, all products of the Enlightenment, lived a median 82 years with no access to modern medicine, which didn't exist at the time. It would probably amaze them to consider that the government they created might punish them for not buying insurance and prepaying for injurious "preventive" diagnostic radiation which also didn't exist at the time. Sadly, the Enlightenment seems to have dimmed in both major parties.

Likewise the germ theory of disease was a major breakthrough. Alas most of Obamneycare spending has little if anything to do with it, unless you're saying that SSRIs (the major topic of the thread) have antibacterial or antiviral effects, which would be a novel theory. Antibiotics and vaccines did help in reducing infant mortality, potable water helped even more, but SSRIs are teratogens and double the risk of suicidality, which was the subject of the OP.

Iosef V HydroCabron says

I can't believe I'm arguing this point.

How do you feel about the Enlightenment, or the germ theory of disease? Scams?

Then just stop. A bunch of people on this forum are clueless. No sense wasting time and electrical power otherwise.

curious2 says

Remember the first five Presidents, all products of the Enlightenment, lived a median 82 years with no access to modern medicine, which didn't exist at the time.

Uh-oh. IIRC, "The plural of anecdote is not data."

Would you be so kind as to favor us with another condescending lecture on the difference between anecdotes and data?

Pathetic.

edvard2 says

clueless

Iosef V HydroCabron says

Pathetic.

ooh - name-calling, that's really winning for your party, isn't it? Gee it's great that you're so concerned about my health then, that you would sacrifice everything ("no lifetime caps") to keep me around. If you dislike me so much, why not simply leave me alone instead of insisting on conscripting me into your Act supposedly for my own good (really for the corporate sponsors who have you hooked on their pills and deluded by their commercial news, "brought to you by" - and interrupted by "a word from our sponsors" - PhRMA)?

curious2 says

I'm a big fan of the Enlightenment, especially the part where people are allowed to live their own lives according to what they believe instead of being conscripted into the latest fad religion e.g. Obamneycare. Remember the first five Presidents, all products of the Enlightenment, lived a median 82 years with no access to modern medicine, which didn't exist at the time.

LOL! You can't seriously be using the first five Presidents as 'proof' of longevity, or in this case the average longevity of the average American during that time... right? Oh- but you are.
Big problem with that theory, which is just as bad as the others you've presented today: The men you're talking about were well-off. Naturally if you're well-off, you can afford better living standards, more access to modern medicine, and better food.

In the 1776 the average life expectency was 35 years. In other words, I'd be well past old age myself and and actually be beating the standard of the time. Yisereee... I'm the ripe ole' age of 38. Wow.

Do you want to know why people live longer today? Well an awful lot of it has to do with improvements in modern medicine. So now we have the potential to increase access to healthcare in general. So I find it amusing that there are those out there who probably bought hook, line, and sinker from the various billionaire-funded, fake grass roots organizations like the Tea Party the lie that access to more healthcare is taking away... from... their... FREEEEEDOM!!!!

Well it don't count if the people KNOW you're full of shit.

curious2 says

ooh - name-calling, that's really winning for your party, isn't it?

Nuttin' said about party. Those comments were in regards to general conversational observation. I don't care if a person is a Democrat, Republican, Liberal, or Conservative. When I read nonsense I call it out for what it is.

edvard2 says

average

LOL - I didn't even use the word "average" I said median, learn the difference. I chose those five because their lifespans are undisputed, most of them were well off but all their money couldn't buy any modern medicine because it did not exist. More importantly, they were all educated; education remains the best predictor of longevity, while money and insurance "pale in comparison." The major increases in life expectancy are almost entirely due to reducing infant mortality, and that is due mainly to potable water, vaccines, and antibiotics, all of which are cheap in countries where you can actually buy them yourself without needing to buy permission first. You're the one deluded by fraudulent billionaires, e.g. Bill McGuire.

curious2 says

LOL - I didn't even use the word "average" I said median, learn the difference. I chose those five because their lifespans are undisputed, most of them were well off but all their money couldn't buy any modern medicine because it did not exist.

Same fucking difference. Median means the "middle number". These men had access to things the majority of the populace didn't. Hence they lived longer, and yes- they did in fact have access to healthcare then, which despite the differences between today's medicine and that of that period, having access to that healthcare meant they could receive treatments for ailments that most otherwise did not. So my point still stands.

Just spit it out: Are you trying to tell us all here that healthcare isn't necessary? Some are rather curious because this conversation grows more amusing by the minute.

edvard2 says

Are you trying to tell us all here that healthcare isn't necessary?

No. But most of the spending is either useless or injurious, driven by political patronage networks for their own power. Just because legislation has "health" in the title doesn't make it good for your health.

edvard2 says

Some are rather curious

I am curious. You are a partisan parrot. Notice how almost all my comments have links to actual sources and real data, while you merely taunt and call me names like a schoolyard bully. SURPRISE: I'm not afraid of bullies, so your tactics only cost you what respect I had for you.

edvard2 says

In the 1776 the average life expectency was 35 years.

This is 1850, but interesting. Life expectancy for white Massuchessets men by age:

0 38.3
10 58.0
20 60.1
30 64.0
40 67.9
50 71.6
60 75.6
70 80.2
80 85.9

Read more: Life Expectancy by Age, 1850–2011 | Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html#ixzz2xlLnYLcx

So people old enough to live to be President are already in the elite 70+ age survivorship. Add in that they get the best living conditions available and it's not surprising to see another 10 years of longevity.

Bellingham Bill says

Read more: Life Expectancy by Age, 1850–2011 | Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html#ixzz2xlLnYLcx

Thanks - btw it shows the females lived even longer. The main difference between the Presidents and other males was, the Presidents were all educated, and education remains the best predictor of longevity.

curious2 says

No. But most of the spending is either useless or injurious, driven by political patronage networks for their own power. Just because legislation has "health" in the title doesn't make it good for your health.

Exactly! So you just correctly pinpointed one of the main reasons the ACA was passed in the first place.curious2 says

I am curious. You are a partisan parrot. Notice how almost all my comments have links to actual sources and real data, while you merely taunt and call me names like a schoolyard bully. SURPRISE: I'm not afraid of bullies, so your tactics only cost you what respect I had for you.

Am I? No. I simply think for myself. I have an opinion and when I see something that doesn't make sense I make a comment. For example, seeing the parts mentioned about SSRI's being toxic and harmful combined with a link to a study which has nothing to do with SSRI's means I feel compelled to call that out and make corrections. Secondly, I don't call people names. The verbiage I used had nothing to do with you and everything to do with the comments. Understand the difference. Calling people names on a forum is lame. Open debate is not "Bullying". Additionally, don't act like you are totally guilt-free of the exact same type of behavior, so don't act all innocent.

curious2 says

But most of the spending is either useless or injurious, driven by political patronage networks for their own power

well, yeah, given that our $9000 per-capita is 3X that of more efficient health systems, that's true.

But to change that we have to start somewhere, and ACA was what our corrupt system was able to vend us.

It is entirely conservative, and that's its main problem, but too much reform means you are fighting very powerful interests, interests that can torpedo political careers quite easily.

See 1993-94 and HillaryCare for how that worked.

And also the 2010 wave election that wiped out many ACA supporters after the GOP lied about ACA cutting Medicare (it cuts Medicare Part C, the idiot 1990s conservative attempt to get more Medicare money to their patrons).

From an NPR article I read a couple years ago, the seratonin suppressor form of antidepressants came out in a bad light. No scientifically significant benefit was derived toward this end in double blind studies, but the advertising campaign for their use towards this condition was WILDLY successful. It seems that people who are a little bit nuts and can't control their own minds prefer to think of their condition as a "chemical imbalance" which can be easily corrected by inventive pharmaceutical intervention. This leads to a fair amount of them getting off their beds and walking, obviously miracle cures.
What is known, however, is that the placebo effect is very real. When the mind is convinced that it's receiving a cure, it will often react to this with positive feedback that actually increases health and immunity. The mind-body connection is very strong in most humans, and this is the reason we do placebo trials. Thinking of the mind and the body as two unrelated systems is erroneous, and is the source of hundreds of billions in futile medical treatment each year.

What happened to the rest of the 40 millions of uninsured: death panels killed them?

edvard2 says

becoming more popular.

Ugh.

Again with the numbers.

Just because Talking Points Memo says something, doesn't make it so.

edvard2 says

starting to work

Well, yes, spending has increased, so it's operating as designed.

Quigley says

From an NPR article I read a couple years ago, the seratonin suppressor form of antidepressants came out in a bad light. No scientifically significant benefit was derived toward this end in double blind studies, but the advertising campaign for their use towards this condition was WILDLY successful. It seems that people who are a little bit nuts and can't control their own minds prefer to think of their condition as a "chemical imbalance" which can be easily corrected by inventive pharmaceutical intervention. This leads to a fair amount of them getting off their beds and walking, obviously miracle cures.

Yes... you too are now a qualified scientist since you read an article on NPR, and therefor it must be true, and SSRI's are a bunch of hooey. I read an article one time too. It said that Vaccines caused Autism. Must be true then.

Like I said- talk all you want about SSRI's not working. As someone who is on them and tried many other things before, I can say that they do indeed work and unless you're someone who also has these same issues and has been through treatment, then you don't really have a say in this debate.

Reminds me of the coffee commercial, we switched this restaurant's regular coffee with [blank's] crystals. Watch out for the day the pharmacist counts out the wrong pills into your little bottle. At least because citalopram has a longer half-life than paroxetine, you're less likely to experience those "not habit forming" "discontinuation syndrome" withdrawal symptoms.

Pro-Tip: when swallowing your toxic SSRI placebos, always use bottled water.

Quigley says

It seems that people who are a little bit nuts and can't control their own minds prefer to think of their condition as a "chemical imbalance"

I'm lost: how is it not chemical, given that our entire bodies are chemicals?

What is known, however, is that the placebo effect is very real.

True story - anecdote, not data: the placebo effect worked on my cat.

My cat was leaking all over the place - outside the box - and the vet said "try a sliver of Prozac."

Thanks to the placebo effect, my cat thinks she's less anxious, and therefore is less anxious. Has not tinkled on the rug since then.

I am going to start taking a placebo every day.

curious2 says

Pro-Tip: when swallowing your toxic SSRI placebos, always use bottled water.

I've already proved repeatedly that SSRI's are no more dangerous than any other drug, but if you want to keep on yammerin' on about it, feel free. Just realize most people with at least some degree of intelligence will raise eyebrows.

CaptainShuddup says

The Liberals tried to convince that everyone was a winner

No, you're thinking of conservatives who tried to convince people that they will be rich if they just stick it out a little longer. Prosperity is just around the corner as it has been for 200 years. All you have to do is give tax breaks to the rich and soon you'll be one of them.

My mom swears that Kangen (TM) brand alkaline water has cured her illnesses, helped her lose weight, and helps with joint pain.
I looked this up and it was easily disproved that ingesting alkaline water has any effect at all on the body, as it's instantly titrated by stomach acid. The human body maintains a constant pH of 7.55, and any deviation of more than 0.05 will be noticed immediately. If the goal of the water was to raise blood PH by decreasing acidity, it would be doing the body harm. If your blood acidity grows, you feel a need to breathe, and exhale CO2, which is the mechanism by which the body regulates oxygen/CO2 levels. This is why if you hold your breath, you feel like your lungs are on fire and feel a strong desire to breathe, but if the cabin of a high altitude airplane is depressurized, everyone just passes out.

All this said, referenced, and based on scientific fact could not sway my mom from her steadfast belief in the miracle cure that is Kangen water.

Some people were just born to believe.

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, April 2, 2014 __ Level is 105.5

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

Quigley says

The human body maintains a constant pH of 7.55, and any deviation of more than 0.05 will be noticed immediately. If the goal of the water was to raise blood PH by decreasing acidity, it would be doing the body harm.

Don't buy into the lies!

The very concepts "pH" and "buffer solution" are the creations of - yeah, you guessed it! - the scientific establishment, who are given grants on condition that their research bolsters predetermined conclusions acceptable to Big Pharma and FedGov.

Wake up, sheeple!