I swear, I couldn't make this crap up if I wanted to, y'all. But this is how Wendy Davis' minions rationalize her epic loss. For those were not paying attention, she lost the Governor's race by over 20 points. Per the Washington Examiner, according to her "communications director Zac Petkanas, who was quoted in the Wall Street Journal," Wendy Davis lost in part because of freaking EBOLA.

No. I'm not even kidding you. Dude is blaming her loss on ebola.

Zac Petkanas, a spokesman for the Davis campaign, chalked up the loss to the national Republican wave that swept over the midterm elections. "The losses that you are seeing in very blue states are simply amplified in states like Texas where there is already a structural advantage for Republicans," he said. Another challenge, he said, was that Texas was at the center of two issues — immigration and the Ebola scare — that helped drive Republican voters to the polls."

I'll wait over here while you compose yourself from laughing....because WOW.

You add this excuse on to the fact that Obama said that we Democrats just had a good night. Mmmm hmmm. And that Harry Reid is doubling down on his relentless stalking of the Koch brothers (I mean, the dude obviously has a crush on those two....it's palpable Harry...seriously), and it's mind-boggling that Democrats just can't look in the mirror at themselves and see - even NOW - where their faults lie. They can't see that folks are getting tired of their continual lying and their endless bullsh*t and are calling them out - at the polls. Instead, they're in denial...a place that they loooooove to live.

But yeah, Wendy and friends. It must be THE EBOLA. Please keep thinking that until 2016. For all of us out here with Actual BRAINS, please.

At least the Dems didn't start 2 protracted wars and collapse the economy. The GOP set the bar very, very low.

I find it plausible that redneck idiot Texans are xenophobic enough that they would think any person of color may have Ebola, regardless of their travel history, and that President Obama is a black man from Kenya, therefore he is bringing Ebola to folks in rural Texas by proxy.

JoeBlo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> At least the Dems didn't start 2 protracted wars
> and collapse the economy. The GOP set the bar
> very, very low.


Senate Democratic votes for the Iraq War

If you remember that day, it was a day of speeches. And at least out among the Littles, the final count wasn’t known until the roll was called. Here are your brave warrior Dems, those who voted Yes, covered in testosterone (or confusion) and glory. I’ve highlighted a few names to note:

YEAs — 77
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA) Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Dodd’s not around today, nor is Edwards, and Harkin is retiring. But the rest are still there — or in the case of Biden and Clinton, in position to do even greater damage.

IRememberWhen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JoeBlo Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > At least the Dems didn't start 2 protracted
> wars
> > and collapse the economy. The GOP set the bar
> > very, very low.
>
>
> Senate Democratic votes for the Iraq War
>
> If you remember that day, it was a day of
> speeches. And at least out among the Littles, the
> final count wasn’t known until the roll was
> called. Here are your brave warrior Dems, those
> who voted Yes, covered in testosterone (or
> confusion) and glory. I’ve highlighted a few
> names to note:
>
> YEAs — 77
> Bayh (D-IN)
> Biden (D-DE)
> Breaux (D-LA)
> Cantwell (D-WA)
> Carnahan (D-MO)
> Carper (D-DE)
> Cleland (D-GA)
> Clinton (D-NY)
> Daschle (D-SD)
> Dodd (D-CT)
> Dorgan (D-ND)
> Edwards (D-NC)
> Feinstein (D-CA)
> Harkin (D-IA) Hollings (D-SC)
> Johnson (D-SD)
> Kerry (D-MA)
> Kohl (D-WI)
> Landrieu (D-LA)
> Lieberman (D-CT)
> Lincoln (D-AR)
> Miller (D-GA)
> Nelson (D-FL)
> Nelson (D-NE)
> Reid (D-NV)
> Rockefeller (D-WV)
> Schumer (D-NY)
> Torricelli (D-NJ)
> Dodd’s not around today, nor is Edwards, and
> Harkin is retiring. But the rest are still there
> — or in the case of Biden and Clinton, in
> position to do even greater damage.

They made a vote that most of them regret. Do you think that the intelligence briefings they received played a part?

"It doesn't matter."

And, while the weapons found were not the expected ones, weapons of mass destruction have recently been uncovered in Iraq. Hussein had used them before. It was a mistake-not a lie.

On the other hand, "if you like your insurance, you can........." falls into the lie category.

Dick Cheney before he dicks you Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> IRememberWhen Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > JoeBlo Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > At least the Dems didn't start 2 protracted
> > wars
> > > and collapse the economy. The GOP set the bar
> > > very, very low.
> >
> >
> > Senate Democratic votes for the Iraq War
> >
> > If you remember that day, it was a day of
> > speeches. And at least out among the Littles,
> the
> > final count wasn’t known until the roll was
> > called. Here are your brave warrior Dems, those
> > who voted Yes, covered in testosterone (or
> > confusion) and glory. I’ve highlighted a few
> > names to note:
> >
> > YEAs — 77
> > Bayh (D-IN)
> > Biden (D-DE)
> > Breaux (D-LA)
> > Cantwell (D-WA)
> > Carnahan (D-MO)
> > Carper (D-DE)
> > Cleland (D-GA)
> > Clinton (D-NY)
> > Daschle (D-SD)
> > Dodd (D-CT)
> > Dorgan (D-ND)
> > Edwards (D-NC)
> > Feinstein (D-CA)
> > Harkin (D-IA) Hollings (D-SC)
> > Johnson (D-SD)
> > Kerry (D-MA)
> > Kohl (D-WI)
> > Landrieu (D-LA)
> > Lieberman (D-CT)
> > Lincoln (D-AR)
> > Miller (D-GA)
> > Nelson (D-FL)
> > Nelson (D-NE)
> > Reid (D-NV)
> > Rockefeller (D-WV)
> > Schumer (D-NY)
> > Torricelli (D-NJ)
> > Dodd’s not around today, nor is Edwards, and
> > Harkin is retiring. But the rest are still
> there
> > — or in the case of Biden and Clinton, in
> > position to do even greater damage.
>
> They made a vote that most of them regret. Do you
> think that the intelligence briefings they
> received played a part?

Ask Hillary, Joe, and Chucky.

Don't blame me, I voted democratic!

Its okay to come out of hiding after last Tuesday
Attachments:

IRememberWhen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Senate Democratic votes for the Iraq War

Please! The President had the votes to pass the AUMF before the vote. The last bit of drama was played out with Tom Daschle leaving the White House having secured no significant change in the language at all. Bush knew he held all the cards and he wasn't budging. The vote itself was a conscience vote on whether to support the President and present a united front to the world with Bush having promised to go to the UN and get "credible threat of force" resolutions that would "disarm" Iraq peacefully, or whether to vote your concerns and suspicions that Bush was an inveterate liar whose word couldn't be trusted on anything. We know now that it was the latter group that actually had things right.

Just today, November 10, 2014, President Obama has appealed to his extreme Leftist base and decided that the internet needs to be regulated.

So, fellow Conservatives, let's not forget that this Big Government Socialist needs to be stopped, as he's decided that this recent election means nothing. The President even stated that he's going to represent the "2/3 who didn't vote", thus assuming like a fascist that the 2/3 who didn't vote meant they supported Obama.

The 2015 election cycle has just begun. It'll be just state and local elections, but we need to root out this Progressive/Socialist/Liberal cancer from Fairfax, Virginia and the U.S.A. as a whole.

By the way, the establishment media had to report the obvious, that the Senate took over the Senate, and some seats in the HR, and a few governorships. What most people didn't hear is that several more states' houses and senates have converted to Republicans as well. So there.

And, Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And, while the weapons found were not the expected
> ones, weapons of mass destruction have recently
> been uncovered in Iraq. Hussein had used them
> before. It was a mistake-not a lie.

It was all deliberate, outright, and fabricated lies. Bush knew it and helped orchestrate it. One of the most disgraceful affairs in US political history. Not to mention disastrous.

No WMD's were found in Iraq because none existed, and that was well known. We knew what Saddam had at the end of the First Gulf War. We had given the stuff to him, after all. We also knew how much had been seized and blown up by the UN in the years after that war. There was a gap of weapons unaccounted for, but the papers and debriefings of the defector Hussein Kamel explained them all. We knew to high level of certainty that there was nothing left to look for. Bush insisted that we needed 100%. We would have had it too, if Hans Blix had been given the time he needed. But Bush couldn't have Blix out there proving the invasion wasn't necessary either, so he proceeded to skip the UN and put US troops in harm's way, even though they lacked the gear and armor necessary to protect them. "Sometimes, you have to fight with the army you've got" was the official Rummy excuse for it. The simple facts were quite otherwise.

> On the other hand, "if you like your insurance,
> you can........." falls into the lie category.

Obviously, you don't know the facts or the history there either.

Fairfax Conservative Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just today, November 10, 2014, President Obama has
> appealed to his extreme Leftist base and decided
> that the internet needs to be regulated.

It appears that bozos don't understand net neutrality either.

Who else remembers that whole Vietnam thing? Those pesky Republica... oh wait.

Thank God for Nixon's secret plat to end the war! His administration ended (in utter disgrace) before the war did...

Peace with Honor
.
Attachments:

And, Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And, while the weapons found were not the expected
> ones, weapons of mass destruction have recently
> been uncovered in Iraq. Hussein had used them
> before. It was a mistake-not a lie.
>
> On the other hand, "if you like your insurance,
> you can........." falls into the lie category.

You are perhaps the most intellectually dishonest person to post on this site today, which is saying something. Cheney knew that he was not telling the truth.

And, Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And, while the weapons found were not the expected
> ones, weapons of mass destruction have recently
> been uncovered in Iraq. Hussein had used them
> before. It was a mistake-not a lie.
>
> On the other hand, "if you like your insurance,
> you can........." falls into the lie category.


Didn't your momma tell you that two wrongs don't make a right? Or did you never get past the potty-training stage?

And, Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And, while the weapons found were not the expected
> ones, weapons of mass destruction have recently
> been uncovered in Iraq. Hussein had used them
> before. It was a mistake-not a lie.
>
> On the other hand, "if you like your insurance,
> you can........." falls into the lie category.

I know I'll regret this, but: No it doesn't. It wasn't a "lie": it wasn't even untrue. That's like saying "This law won't keep you from dining at Piero's in Fairfax" and then the restaurant goes out of business. The plans that got dropped were dropped because they were non-conforming and/or the insurance company killed them. Which happens all the time. The insurance company didn't go out of business; nobody said "You cannot buy insurance from that company". You people who don't understand how ****ed up the health insurance business is are scary--you've never had to actually deal with the pathology that is the current system, and so you think it's OK. It's not. I'm unconvinced that Obamacare is THE answer, but any movement is good: either things will get worse, and folks wll object and more changes will occur, or it'll get better.

So far, in fact, it's gotten better. "My rates went up a bit!" -- yeah, unlike the previous years, where they went up a LOT. "My plan went away!" -- join the club, been happening every year for a long time. "It might limit services!" -- as opposed to insurance companies, which do that EVERY DAY, often as a cold-blooded calculus of "If we delay, the patient will die and we'll save money".

I have yet to hear of any ACTUAL evil caused by Obamacare. Lots of theoretical and made-up worries ("death panels", anyone?), lots of politicking, but nothing real.

So please don't whinge about Obamacare until you have something substantive to say. It just makes you look ignorant.

Now flame away...

P.S. I don't even think Bush "lied" about the WMD. Cheney, yes; but, just like Johnson, the President has to at some point believe what he's being told. What's he gonna do, go over there and dig himself? Where Bush failed was in never admitting that he'd been misled (or if he did, I missed it). Not sure Johnson did, either. Might not be politic to do so, but it would be the honorable thing to do. Of course we're talking politicians, where "honor" is, alas, rare...

>At least the Dems didn't start 2 protracted wars. Hey Hey LBJ How many kids did you kill today??

WTF do you expect with an attack like we saw on 911 ?? Dem Ahole! Sit back hold hands , light candles??

JoeBlo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> At least the Dems didn't start 2 protracted wars
> and collapse the economy. The GOP set the bar
> very, very low.


True, they set us up for 9/11 and the housing bubble. That's all. And now it's the reconquista.

You Forgetting Vietnam Chump Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >At least the Dems didn't start 2 protracted wars.
> Hey Hey LBJ How many kids did you kill today??
>
> WTF do you expect with an attack like we saw on
> 911 ?? Dem Ahole! Sit back hold hands , light
> candles??

How about not playing right into Bin Ladens game helping Al Qeada take out governments.

Bin Laden wanted to start a "Holy Jihad" What fuck would you call the US jumping to middle east wars is?

We need to get the fuck out the middle east and let them go back to fight each other.

Greybeard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And, Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > And, while the weapons found were not the
> expected
> > ones, weapons of mass destruction have recently
> > been uncovered in Iraq. Hussein had used them
> > before. It was a mistake-not a lie.
> >
> > On the other hand, "if you like your insurance,
> > you can........." falls into the lie category.
>
> I know I'll regret this, but: No it doesn't. It
> wasn't a "lie": it wasn't even untrue. That's like
> saying "This law won't keep you from dining at
> Piero's in Fairfax" and then the restaurant goes
> out of business. The plans that got dropped were
> dropped because they were non-conforming and/or
> the insurance company killed them. Which happens
> all the time. The insurance company didn't go out
> of business; nobody said "You cannot buy insurance
> from that company". You people who don't
> understand how ****ed up the health insurance
> business is are scary--you've never had to
> actually deal with the pathology that is the
> current system, and so you think it's OK. It's
> not. I'm unconvinced that Obamacare is THE answer,
> but any movement is good: either things will get
> worse, and folks wll object and more changes will
> occur, or it'll get better.
>
> So far, in fact, it's gotten better. "My rates
> went up a bit!" -- yeah, unlike the previous
> years, where they went up a LOT. "My plan went
> away!" -- join the club, been happening every year
> for a long time. "It might limit services!" -- as
> opposed to insurance companies, which do that
> EVERY DAY, often as a cold-blooded calculus of "If
> we delay, the patient will die and we'll save
> money".
>
> I have yet to hear of any ACTUAL evil caused by
> Obamacare. Lots of theoretical and made-up worries
> ("death panels", anyone?), lots of politicking,
> but nothing real.
>
> So please don't whinge about Obamacare until you
> have something substantive to say. It just makes
> you look ignorant.
>
> Now flame away...


No, it was pretty much just a flat out lie and they knew it. Just like they lied about the rest of it in order to get it passed.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/11/10/aca-architect-the-stupidity-of-the-american-voter-led-us-to-hide-obamacares-tax-hikes-and-subsidies-from-the-public/

Beyond that, it sounds like you've had no first-hand experience with the mess that is Obamacare. Rates in VA didn't go up "a bit," they've roughly doubled for policies with less coverage than most of us had. People have lost their policies as a direct result of the law. People cannot in many cases keep their doctors. And they knew very well that all of this would happen. In fact, it's by design in many respects.

If you're one of the poor who aren't paying for it or someone who was in the high-risk pools, then, yeah, ObamaCare is a great deal. For the rest of the vast majority of us who were in the individual market, it blows. We get screwed in order to pay for a relatively small number of uninsured who could have been handled in a much more cost-effective way and without fucking things up for all of us.

Greybeard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I know I'll regret this, but: No it doesn't. It
> wasn't a "lie": it wasn't even untrue. That's like
> saying "This law won't keep you from dining at
> Piero's in Fairfax" and then the restaurant goes
> out of business. The plans that got dropped were
> dropped because they were non-conforming and/or
> the insurance company killed them. Which happens
> all the time. The insurance company didn't go out
> of business; nobody said "You cannot buy insurance
> from that company". You people who don't
> understand how ****ed up the health insurance
> business is are scary--you've never had to
> actually deal with the pathology that is the
> current system, and so you think it's OK. It's
> not. I'm unconvinced that Obamacare is THE answer,
> but any movement is good: either things will get
> worse, and folks wll object and more changes will
> occur, or it'll get better.
>
> So far, in fact, it's gotten better. "My rates
> went up a bit!" -- yeah, unlike the previous
> years, where they went up a LOT. "My plan went
> away!" -- join the club, been happening every year
> for a long time. "It might limit services!" -- as
> opposed to insurance companies, which do that
> EVERY DAY, often as a cold-blooded calculus of "If
> we delay, the patient will die and we'll save
> money".
>
> I have yet to hear of any ACTUAL evil caused by
> Obamacare. Lots of theoretical and made-up worries
> ("death panels", anyone?), lots of politicking,
> but nothing real.
>
> So please don't whinge about Obamacare until you
> have something substantive to say. It just makes
> you look ignorant.
>
> Now flame away...

You just don't expect to see such honest and accurate material on FFXU. The trained seals here have all drowned in disinformation, so this may not get through to them of course. Still good to see space given to the sane and rational here fro a change.

"what Obamacare really is: a huge redistribution of wealth from the young and healthy to the old and unhealthy"

As opposed to what? How do you think health insurance works? Avik Roy is either a moron or dissembling. I'm betting on Door #2.

Rates in Virginia have doubled? So Virginia is an outlier, and the rest of the country's rates went down, while Virginia's mysteriously went up? Amazing.

Greybeard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "what Obamacare really is: a huge redistribution
> of wealth from the young and healthy to the old
> and unhealthy"
>
> As opposed to what? How do you think health
> insurance works? Avik Roy is either a moron or
> dissembling. I'm betting on Door #2.


It's a simple fact in this case. Rates for the older are artificially limited to 3X that of the younger. As a result, the way that they make up the difference is by charging younger rates which are much higher than they were or would be otherwise.

>
> Rates in Virginia have doubled? So Virginia is an
> outlier, and the rest of the country's rates went
> down, while Virginia's mysteriously went up?
> Amazing.


No, they didn't go down for most. The vast majority of those who were in the individual market previously are paying significantly more. The areas where they went down are the exceptions and where that has happened it's due to some unusual circumstances which existed/exist in those specific cases (NY had very high rates to begin with, CA has de facto caps imposed, etc.). Again, pretty clear that you've not had to actually deal with any of this directly.

"If you're one of the poor who aren't paying for it or someone who was in the high-risk pools, then, yeah, ObamaCare is a great deal. For the rest of the vast majority of us who were in the individual market, it blows. We get screwed in order to pay for a relatively small number of uninsured who could have been handled in a much more cost-effective way and without fucking things up for all of us."

Really. What is your "much more cost-effective way" of handling high risk people? I'm sure you're convinced that you, your spouse, and your children will never have an illness that costs many thousands of dollars - and that insurers refuse to cover. But I wouldn't bet on it.

Karma is a Bitch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Really. What is your "much more cost-effective
> way" of handling high risk people?


We could have dropped them all into Medicaid at what would seem like a bargain compared to what this mess is costing us. Or simply expanded the high-risk pools with some subsidization. But that didn't satisfy the health care policy wonk's objectives of delivering comprehensive health care for the poor along with all of the vested interests like the insurance and drug companies who had substantial influence over how the law it was drafted.


> I'm sure you're
> convinced that you, your spouse, and your children
> will never have an illness that costs many
> thousands of dollars - and that insurers refuse to
> cover. But I wouldn't bet on it.


Been there, done that through babies to cancer. In fact, I've had more problems with employer-provided insurance as far as that kind of stuff goes. Most people, likely you included have no idea how all of that worked or now works. You're just running on talking points.

It's a fucked up mess of a law that's not even doing a very good job as far as what it was designed to do. Wait until it starts to hit you and everyone else on the employer side and then let me know how great you think it is. lol

Jonathan Gruber Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We could have dropped them all into Medicaid at
> what would seem like a bargain compared to what
> this mess is costing us. Or simply expanded the
> high-risk pools with some subsidization. But that
> didn't satisfy the health care policy wonk's
> objectives of delivering comprehensive health care
> for the poor along with all of the vested
> interests like the insurance and drug companies
> who had substantial influence over how the law it
> was drafted.

No, the GOP poisoned those wells, bleating "Socialism!" and making shit up. You're absolutely right -- Medicaid in particular would have been MUCH better. But like the man said, "Politics is the art of the possible". And thanks to know-nothing, scorched-earth politics (on both sides), a rational answer wasn't possible. So here we are. Still better off as a country than we were before.

Greybeard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jonathan Gruber Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > We could have dropped them all into Medicaid at
> > what would seem like a bargain compared to what
> > this mess is costing us. Or simply expanded
> the
> > high-risk pools with some subsidization. But
> that
> > didn't satisfy the health care policy wonk's
> > objectives of delivering comprehensive health
> care
> > for the poor along with all of the vested
> > interests like the insurance and drug companies
> > who had substantial influence over how the law
> it
> > was drafted.
>
> No, the GOP poisoned those wells, bleating
> "Socialism!" and making shit up. You're absolutely
> right -- Medicaid in particular would have been
> MUCH better. But like the man said, "Politics is
> the art of the possible". And thanks to
> know-nothing, scorched-earth politics (on both
> sides), a rational answer wasn't possible. So here
> we are. Still better off as a country than we were
> before.


Sorry, there's a lot that you can blame on Republicans but they had virtually nothing to do with Obamacare. They were shut out of the process. "Elections have consequences," remember? In fact, they pushed this clusterfuck through in half-assed form in order to avoid having to compromise on ANY aspects after they lost Kennedy's seat.

Other than if you're relatively poor, we're really not much if any better off. All of the benficial aspects could have been done in a much more simple form. As it is it's caused as many problems as it's helped.

Insurance and drug companies definitely are better off. Yeah, we really stuck it to those nasty old insurance companies. Guaranteed them tens of millions of customers with participation enforced by law, subsidized payments to them for those who can't afford it, at a 20% profit margin, and they retain the ability to raise prices on a cost-plus basis. Please, stick it to my business like that. lol

Nice comments, but,

All I wanted to do was point out that Dems are blaming last week's defeats on.... Ebola.

Why are you republicans so damn dumb? Do you prefer it when the country does poorly?
Attachments:

Y.U. Dothis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why are you republicans so damn dumb? Do you
> prefer it when the country does poorly?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/20/2015 09:59AM by WingNut.
Attachments:

Greybeard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jonathan Gruber Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > We could have dropped them all into Medicaid at
> > what would seem like a bargain compared to what
> > this mess is costing us. Or simply expanded
> the
> > high-risk pools with some subsidization. But
> that
> > didn't satisfy the health care policy wonk's
> > objectives of delivering comprehensive health
> care
> > for the poor along with all of the vested
> > interests like the insurance and drug companies
> > who had substantial influence over how the law
> it
> > was drafted.
>
> No, the GOP poisoned those wells, bleating
> "Socialism!" and making shit up. You're absolutely
> right -- Medicaid in particular would have been
> MUCH better. But like the man said, "Politics is
> the art of the possible". And thanks to
> know-nothing, scorched-earth politics (on both
> sides), a rational answer wasn't possible. So here
> we are. Still better off as a country than we were
> before.


Just another braindead lib you are Greybeard.

Almost half of the doctors in this country no longer take new Medicare patients. Know why? Because they lose money on them. Adding another 40 million non-insured would just kill off the rest that still do.

You want to spend a trillion dollars on health care? Then build a VA-like system with federally run hospitals and clinics in all the states and staff them with government employees - from the doctors down to housekeepers. This will create a two-tiered health care system in this country but at least everyone would have a place to go. Of course, you'd have all the problems that the VA has as well, like government employees being responsible for your health care. What a success that has been.....NOT

Instead, in typical liberal fashion, they lower all boats and drag the rest of us who were doing well with our health care into the swamp to try and make us all miserable. Thank God the republicans won. And I don't like them either, but at least they didn't try and fuck me over because I have a little money and can take care of myself.

Greybeard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> P.S. I don't even think Bush "lied" about the WMD.
> Cheney, yes; but, just like Johnson, the President
> has to at some point believe what he's being told.
> What's he gonna do, go over there and dig himself?
> Where Bush failed was in never admitting that he'd
> been misled (or if he did, I missed it). Not sure
> Johnson did, either. Might not be politic to do
> so, but it would be the honorable thing to do. Of
> course we're talking politicians, where "honor"
> is, alas, rare...


We shouldnt elect leaders that pick staff that lies and tricks them into acts of war imho. Perhaps Bush was fooled perhaps not but the buck stops on the desk of the President not his staffers. If he was lied to and fooled he certainly knew that fact within his 8 year term at which point he would have been duty bound to fire and prosecute the staff that lied to him causing the death of thousands of our brave men and women.

D7NFW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Greybeard Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > P.S. I don't even think Bush "lied" about the
> WMD.
> > Cheney, yes; but, just like Johnson, the
> President
> > has to at some point believe what he's being
> told.
> > What's he gonna do, go over there and dig
> himself?
> > Where Bush failed was in never admitting that
> he'd
> > been misled (or if he did, I missed it). Not
> sure
> > Johnson did, either. Might not be politic to do
> > so, but it would be the honorable thing to do.
> Of
> > course we're talking politicians, where "honor"
> > is, alas, rare...
>
>
> We shouldnt elect leaders that pick staff that
> lies and tricks them into acts of war imho.
> Perhaps Bush was fooled perhaps not but the buck
> stops on the desk of the President not his
> staffers. If he was lied to and fooled he
> certainly knew that fact within his 8 year term at
> which point he would have been duty bound to fire
> and prosecute the staff that lied to him causing
> the death of thousands of our brave men and women.


How does the FACT that every other world leader in the Western Hemisphere, with they own intelligence services and staffs, also believe Iraq had WMDs jibe with your analysis? Clue: it doesn't

After his caputre, Hussein admitted he wanted to deter Iran so he created a sophisticated effort to present the appearence that he had WMD's and used his limited WMDs occassionally, either in wars or on his own people to further that illusion.

Bush didn't lie, just like Blair or any other Western leader did. They were all fooled. Bush was itching for a reason to take Hussein out and this gave it to him, but he or his team or even the intel agencies didn't make it up. Hussein made it up.

JoeBlo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> At least the Dems didn't start 2 protracted wars
> and collapse the economy. The GOP set the bar
> very, very low.

Aww look at the liberal whine it's Bush's fault! The liberal gets pummeled in the election, so blaming Bush is all they have left! Sucking Obola's cock isn't working out for you, is it????

Jonathan Gruber Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No, it was pretty much just a flat out lie and
> they knew it. Just like they lied about the rest
> of it in order to get it passed.

You should be deported for being so stupid.

Every tax in PPACA had been plastered all over the internet for months prior to its passage. The individual market has never been more than 5-7% of the total. When you don't know basic things like that, it makes you seem like just another bloviating Freedomworks wind-up toy. Duh!

Jonathan Gruber Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We could have dropped them all into Medicaid at
> what would seem like a bargain compared to what
> this mess is costing us. Or simply expanded the
> high-risk pools with some subsidization. But that
> didn't satisfy the health care policy wonk's
> objectives of delivering comprehensive health care
> for the poor along with all of the vested
> interests like the insurance and drug companies
> who had substantial influence over how the law it
> was drafted.

These are all what we call STAKEHOLDERS, moron. Of course their inputs were taken into account. Everyone's were. The system after all has to continue to serve everyone even while undergoing long-overdue renovations. You cannot make abrupt moves or pull the rug out from under any system component.

The only people in your whiney little "individual market" who have problems are the low-grade skimps who were running the on-the-cheap risks of deliberate under-insurance. Low-cost, low-coverage, and the taxpayer will pick up the rest if anything bad actually happens. Cry in your beer -- homey don't play that game anymore.

When you are hell-bent on going to war, confirmation bias rules supreme. The British and U.S. governments chose to believe what they wanted to hear and ignored the rest. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/9937516/Iraq-war-the-greatest-intelligence-failure-in-living-memory.html

Jonathan Gruber Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sorry, there's a lot that you can blame on
> Republicans but they had virtually nothing to do
> with Obamacare. They were shut out of the
> process.

Bwahahahahahaha! There were about 150 Republican-drafted amendments included in the final Senate bill. Do you remember the "Gang of Six"? Obviously, the jerkoff does not! The group was instrumental in getting policy [planks hammered together until the three Republicans involved were ordered to drop out in advance of the August 2009 flash-mob invasions of town hall meetings.

> In fact, they pushed this clusterfuck through in
> half-assed form in order to avoid having to
> compromise on ANY aspects after they lost
> Kennedy's seat.

Reconciliation? LOLOLOL! Does you have any recollection of how Bush got his two tax cuts for the rich passed? Since you likely either never knew or have since forgotten, I will simply tell you: Reconciliation.

> Insurance and drug companies definitely are better
> off. Yeah, we really stuck it to those nasty old
> insurance companies.

If there had been an intention to "stick it to" insurance companies, we would have. The actual intention is for them to continue to function effectively, so that people in huge numbers do not start falling throughh the cracks and dying. Remember that any journey can only begin from the point where you already are. Such a basic thing to trip, stumble, and fall over.

What a jerkoff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jonathan Gruber Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > No, it was pretty much just a flat out lie and
> > they knew it. Just like they lied about the
> rest
> > of it in order to get it passed.
>
> You should be deported for being so stupid.
>
> Every tax in PPACA had been plastered all over the
> internet for months prior to its passage. The
> individual market has never been more than 5-7% of
> the total. When you don't know basic things like
> that, it makes you seem like just another
> bloviating Freedomworks wind-up toy. Duh!


Yet the administration continually denied that it was a tax or would raise taxes. And as Gruber describes, intentionally wrote the bill in a way that cast the taxes as penalties in order to avoid having CBO score the true cost. At least until it made it to the court where they had to defend it on the basis of being a tax.

Who said I don't know that the individual market is a small percentage of the insurance market. I believe that I made that clear in noting that the effects haven't (yet) been felt by most here who are simply reciting the same tired talking points without having to deal with it themselves. It's still tens of millions of people and being a small percentage doesn't change the fact that it has fucked up things for those of us who are self employed and have to rely on it. In fact, being a smaller group just makes it worse since the effects of dumping all of the poor and high-risk people into the smaller individual pool is greater and we bear a greatly disproportionate share of the cost to cover them.

Democrat excuses for what?

Decreasing unemployment?
Recovering the US economy?
Recovering the American auto and airlines industry?
Saving the banks?
Recovering home business?
Providing healthcare to all Americans?
Ending the Bush scavenger hunt for WMD in Iraq?
$2 gas?

For What? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Democrat excuses for what?
>
> Decreasing unemployment?
> Recovering the US economy?
> Recovering the American auto and airlines
> industry?
> Saving the banks?
> Recovering home business?
> Providing healthcare to all Americans?
> Ending the Bush scavenger hunt for WMD in Iraq?
> $2 gas?

Wow I am surprised you didn't get Obama's cock out of your mouth long enough to rattle off 'Obama killed Bin Laden!' as well. This is actually a kudos for not doing that, but in a disrespectful, I hate your fucking guts kind of way...libtard.

D7NFW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We shouldnt elect leaders that pick staff that
> lies and tricks them into acts of war imho.
> Perhaps Bush was fooled perhaps not but the buck
> stops on the desk of the President not his
> staffers. If he was lied to and fooled he
> certainly knew that fact within his 8 year term at
> which point he would have been duty bound to fire
> and prosecute the staff that lied to him causing
> the death of thousands of our brave men and women.

You've got the shoe on the wrong foot. It was Bush and his underlings who were deliberately cooking the books in trying to mislead the world into war. They ignored or redacted contrary opinions and contradictory evidence from actual intelligence reports. They had Doug Feith's Office of Special Operations manufacturing phony intelligence in the basement of the Pentagon. Slop and rumor sent in by the likes of Curveball and the Iraqi National Congress that was cleaned up and sent to Congress as if it were actual vetted intelligence. Con-man operatives planting favorable but phony stories with the likes of the NY Times' Judith Miller, then pointing to those very stories once published as proof that the administration was right. In September of 2002 after a Camp David meeting with Tony Blair, Bush indicated that the IAEA had issued a report saying that Iraq was six months from developing a nuclear weapon. Nobody could find such a report. When pressed, the White House said that Bush had meant to refer to such a report from 1991. There was no such report in 1991 either. IAEA officials stated that they had NEVER issued such a report and had in fact concluded that Iraq's nuclear capabilities had been effectively reduced to zero by 1998. But you still heard "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" from Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and the rest of Team Lie-Through-Their-Teeth.

Update... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You've got the shoe on the wrong foot. It was
> Bush and his underlings who were deliberately
> cooking the books in trying to mislead the world
> into war. They ignored or redacted contrary
> opinions and contradictory evidence from actual
> intelligence reports. They had Doug Feith's
> Office of Special Operations manufacturing phony
> intelligence in the basement of the Pentagon.
> Slop and rumor sent in by the likes of Curveball
> and the Iraqi National Congress that was cleaned
> up and sent to Congress as if it were actual
> vetted intelligence. Con-man operatives planting
> favorable but phony stories with the likes of the
> NY Times' Judith Miller, then pointing to those
> very stories once published as proof that the
> administration was right. In September of 2002
> after a Camp David meeting with Tony Blair, Bush
> indicated that the IAEA had issued a report saying
> that Iraq was six months from developing a nuclear
> weapon. Nobody could find such a report. When
> pressed, the White House said that Bush had meant
> to refer to such a report from 1991. There was no
> such report in 1991 either. IAEA officials stated
> that they had NEVER issued such a report and had
> in fact concluded that Iraq's nuclear capabilities
> had been effectively reduced to zero by 1998. But
> you still heard "We don't want the smoking gun to
> be a mushroom cloud" from Bush, Cheney, Rice,
> Rumsfeld, and the rest of Team
> Lie-Through-Their-Teeth.

 
Attachments:

dFENn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How does the FACT that every
> other world leader in the Western Hemisphere, with
> they own intelligence services and staffs, also
> believe Iraq had WMDs jibe with your analysis?
> Clue: it doesn't

Right, that's why Bush had so much support at the UN and why all these countries were so eager to become part of his laughably ridiculous "Coalition of the Willing". The Bushies were just such droopy caricatures of themselves. Bunch of braindead, slow-dog buffoons. And example of what can happen when children are allowed to play with matches.

> After his caputre, Hussein admitted he wanted to
> deter Iran so he created a sophisticated effort to
> present the appearence that he had WMD's...

Even though he didn't. It was a bluff-and-bluster play. Apparently enough t convince some.

> ...and used his limited WMDs occassionally, either in wars or
> on his own people to further that illusion.

When did this happen? During the Iran-Iraq War? Those were the weapons that WE GAVE HIM, and for those purposes. Note that while he could have, Saddam never used chemical weapons against Israel nor against the United States when we were on the verge of toppling him, but refused to finish the job.

> Bush didn't lie, just like Blair or any other
> Western leader did. They were all fooled.

LOL! It was Bush doing the fooling, but people better informed than you were not falling for it.

confirmation bias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When you are hell-bent on going to war,
> confirmation bias rules supreme. The British and
> U.S. governments chose to believe what they wanted
> to hear and ignored the rest.

They knew full well it was all a bucket of tripe. They hoped and believed that the spoils and results of their easy little war would more than justify their having to invent a rationale for starting it. Sadly, they were horribly wrong about those spoils and results as well.

So dense...so VERY dense Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> dFENn Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > How does the FACT that
> every
> > other world leader in the Western Hemisphere,
> with
> > they own intelligence services and staffs, also
> > believe Iraq had WMDs jibe with your analysis?
> > Clue: it doesn't
>
> Right, that's why Bush had so much support at the
> UN and why all these countries were so eager to
> become part of his laughably ridiculous "Coalition
> of the Willing". The Bushies were just such
> droopy caricatures of themselves. Bunch of
> braindead, slow-dog buffoons. And example of what
> can happen when children are allowed to play with
> matches.
>
> > After his caputre, Hussein admitted he wanted
> to
> > deter Iran so he created a sophisticated effort
> to
> > present the appearence that he had WMD's...
>
> Even though he didn't. It was a bluff-and-bluster
> play. Apparently enough t convince some.
>
> > ...and used his limited WMDs occassionally,
> either in wars or
> > on his own people to further that illusion.
>
> When did this happen? During the Iran-Iraq War?
> Those were the weapons that WE GAVE HIM, and for
> those purposes. Note that while he could have,
> Saddam never used chemical weapons against Israel
> nor against the United States when we were on the
> verge of toppling him, but refused to finish the
> job.
>
> > Bush didn't lie, just like Blair or any other
> > Western leader did. They were all fooled.
>
> LOL! It was Bush doing the fooling, but people
> better informed than you were not falling for it.


Yeah, you sound like a super-genius all right. LOL

 
Attachments:

Hush! Bush and republicans never existed.

Never happened!

Jonathan Gruber Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yet the administration continually denied that it
> was a tax or would raise taxes. And as Gruber
> describes, intentionally wrote the bill in a way
> that cast the taxes as penalties in order to avoid
> having CBO score the true cost. At least until it
> made it to the court where they had to defend it
> on the basis of being a tax.

If this is the same guy, you are much dumber than I first thought. There are dozens of taxes in PPACA. That's how it managed to become budget neutral. Well, actually, it slightly reduces the deficit. Those taxes fall mostly on the wealthy. The people who can most easily afford to pay them. The penalty versus tax question for Montana Militia insurance-dodgers is a moot question.

> Who said I don't know that the individual market
> is a small percentage of the insurance market.

Whoever wrote the words "vast majority". And if you were so comfortable with the fact that you are talking about only a tiny portion of a small percentage, why did you not openly address it?

You whiners by the way are not picking up any special portion of anybody else's costs. You are simply engaging in pathetic NIMBY whining on that point.

LOL!ing means "I got nothing" Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, you sound like a super-genius all right. LOL

Nice job of not being able to rebut a single word of it. I see that sort of thing a lot from totally hapless stupid shits. You should be deported for being that dumb, right along with the other guy.

So dense...so VERY dense Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LOL!ing means "I got nothing" Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yeah, you sound like a super-genius all right.
> LOL
>
> Nice job of not being able to rebut a single word
> of it. I see that sort of thing a lot from
> totally hapless stupid shits. You should be
> deported for being that dumb, right along with the
> other guy.


I can see you pounding your useless drivel as your blood pressure shoots up and the veins stick out in your little peanut head. Keep your irrational anger going - it's taking years off your already worthless life. As you lie dying in your own shit, know that the world is better off for you leaving it and not one soul on this planet is going to miss you.

BTW: dems still got crushed last week. Still sucks don't it. LOL!

What a jerkoff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jonathan Gruber Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > We could have dropped them all into Medicaid at
> > what would seem like a bargain compared to what
> > this mess is costing us. Or simply expanded
> the
> > high-risk pools with some subsidization. But
> that
> > didn't satisfy the health care policy wonk's
> > objectives of delivering comprehensive health
> care
> > for the poor along with all of the vested
> > interests like the insurance and drug companies
> > who had substantial influence over how the law
> it
> > was drafted.
>
> These are all what we call STAKEHOLDERS, moron.
> Of course their inputs were taken into account.
> Everyone's were. The system after all has to
> continue to serve everyone even while undergoing
> long-overdue renovations. You cannot make abrupt
> moves or pull the rug out from under any system
> component.

Sure. Selected stakeholders, not including all or those they didn't want to have any input, done in the background so that the concessions made wouldn't be apparent.


>
> The only people in your whiney little "individual
> market" who have problems are the low-grade skimps
> who were running the on-the-cheap risks of
> deliberate under-insurance. Low-cost,
> low-coverage, and the taxpayer will pick up the
> rest if anything bad actually happens. Cry in
> your beer -- homey don't play that game anymore.


You can keep saying it, but it won't make it true. That's bullshit and I've schooled you on this several times before.

The vast majority of individual policies were basically the same as employer-provided plans at somewhat higher cost since you don't have the group leveling of risks and volume discounts (or employer contribution obviously). My last policy was with Aetna. Previously with Kaiser and BC/BS. In terms of coverage/limits/copays, etc., they were roughly the same as what I had through employers at various times in the past. Basically no difference other than I'm paying for all of it. It's not at all "crappy insurance." The same basic plan and terms that I had are offered under a different policy name/cost through AetnaFed to Federal and postal employees. It provided annual physicals, other wellness and preventative services, smoking cessation, etc., etc.

My current plan, which I'll be forced to change from this year, is an Aetna Pro Plus 5000 plan which is essentially the same as this policy in its most recent form (they don't have details of older plans online now) but with a $5,000 versus $5,500 deductible:

http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ehealthinsurance/benefits/ifp/Aetna/va_aetna_advantageplus_5500_PD.pdf

It's $5,000 deductible/$10K out-of-network, 90%/10% co-insurance, 90%/10% co-pay @ $242/month.

The new ACA-compliant plan which is recommended as a substitute is "Bronze-level" plan with a $6,350 deductible/$12,600 out of network, 60%/40% con-insurance and co-pay levels, restricted to Inova service providers, all for the low, low bargain price of $407/month.

Now tell me again what a great deal that is.

So dense...so VERY dense Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LOL!ing means "I got nothing" Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yeah, you sound like a super-genius all right.
> LOL
>
> Nice job of not being able to rebut a single word
> of it. I see that sort of thing a lot from
> totally hapless stupid shits. You should be
> deported for being that dumb, right along with the
> other guy.


Do you always whine like a little baby when your opinions aren't accepted as fact? That's what we call a rhetorical question. You're a flaming liberal, so we all know the answer is yes. You guys never get past the antics (or reasoning) of a 2 year old.


 
Attachments:

So dense...so VERY dense Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LOL!ing means "I got nothing" Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yeah, you sound like a super-genius all right.
> LOL
>
> Nice job of not being able to rebut a single word
> of it. I see that sort of thing a lot from
> totally hapless stupid shits. You should be
> deported for being that dumb, right along with the
> other guy.


Maybe you should start posting your gay porn again. That was great rebuttal asshole, what with the the whole gay combining with the porn. Why people didn't get how much a fucking super-genius you were from that is beyond me. LOL!

uXC94 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BTW: dems still got crushed last week. Still
> sucks don't it. LOL!

So going absolutely nowhere at all...
.
Attachments:

Jonathan Gruber Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sure. Selected stakeholders, not including all or
> those they didn't want to have any input, done in
> the background so that the concessions made
> wouldn't be apparent.

Go stick your head back in the Heritage Foundation toilet, dumbo.

> You can keep saying it, but it won't make it true.

YOU are saying it. The most comparable plan on the exchange you tell us is a bottom-of-the-barrel Bronze Plan, and it still costs more than what you have now? That's because the plan you have now doesn't cover anything and doesn't pay anything. That's what makes it cheap. It's also what makes it non-compliant. Bite the bullet here, jerkoff. Go pay for something that doesn't lean on the rest of us to pick up the tab for whatever you can't or simply refuse to pay for.

> That's bullshit and I've schooled you on this
> several times before.

Ah, another former Cy Young Award winner. Aren't internet resumés fun?

> The vast majority of individual policies were
> basically the same as employer-provided plans at
> somewhat higher cost since you don't have the
> group leveling of risks and volume discounts (or
> employer contribution obviously).

And exactly none of those people are losing their plans as any result of PPACA. The doofus whiner people are those whose plans have not already been cancelled by the issuer and who kept renewing those and similar plans when they knew full well they were going to be closed for being substandard even with years of warning of what was coming. This is like complaining about a 50-in-a-35 speeding ticket just after driving past four signs saying SPEED LIMIT 35. Sorry about your dumbness. Pay the fine.

What a jerkoff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jonathan Gruber Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yet the administration continually denied that
> it
> > was a tax or would raise taxes. And as Gruber
> > describes, intentionally wrote the bill in a
> way
> > that cast the taxes as penalties in order to
> avoid
> > having CBO score the true cost. At least until
> it
> > made it to the court where they had to defend
> it
> > on the basis of being a tax.
>
> If this is the same guy, you are much dumber than
> I first thought. There are dozens of taxes in
> PPACA. That's how it managed to become budget
> neutral. Well, actually, it slightly reduces the
> deficit. Those taxes fall mostly on the wealthy.
> The people who can most easily afford to pay them.
> The penalty versus tax question for Montana
> Militia insurance-dodgers is a moot question.

It's only 'budget neutral' because they gamed the numbers as Gruber describes by grabbing claimed revenues up front and pushing major costs out beyond the time frame for CBO analysis. As Elmendorf has noted in his presentations regarding the costs numerous times.

>
> > Who said I don't know that the individual
> market
> > is a small percentage of the insurance market.
>
>
> Whoever wrote the words "vast majority". And if
> you were so comfortable with the fact that you are
> talking about only a tiny portion of a small
> percentage, why did you not openly address it?
>
> You whiners by the way are not picking up any
> special portion of anybody else's costs. You are
> simply engaging in pathetic NIMBY whining on that
> point.

The question was regarding those affected by Obamacare to date. The formerly uninsured poor receiving significant subsidies and those formerly in the high-risk pools who were added are an even smaller percentage of the individual market and about the only ones who are paying less. The costs for everyone else formerly in the individual market generally are much higher for the same or lesser coverage.

We are bearing a disproportionate share of the costs due to the increased risk added to the pool and expanded coverage requirements as well as structural effects of how pricing is limited for some in the pool. Those outside of the individual market, while they will pay in taxes as we also do, don't share those added costs.

Jonathan Gruber Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's only 'budget neutral' because they gamed the
> numbers as Gruber describes by grabbing claimed
> revenues up front and pushing major costs out
> beyond the time frame for CBO analysis. As
> Elmendorf has noted in his presentations regarding
> the costs numerous times.

Bullshit, you lying simpleton assfuck. The further out you go, the BETTER the budget effects become. The fact that trying to craft a long-term care package to meet Congressional requirements was tabled worsens the picture slightly, but your 10- and 20-year data easily remain deficit reductions.

> The question was regarding those affected by
> Obamacare to date. The formerly uninsured poor
> receiving significant subsidies and those formerly
> in the high-risk pools who were added are an even
> smaller percentage of the individual market and
> about the only ones who are paying less. The
> costs for everyone else formerly in the individual
> market generally are much higher for the same or
> lesser coverage.

Horse hockey. Unlike the pikers and skinflints you seek to defend, most people in the individual market were already purchasing compliant coverage or had their non-compliant policies pulled by the issuer at some point over the past four years and so moved into a compliant plan at that time. The costs of all of these are moving in line with increases in the cost of health care coverage generally, which for reasons both inside and outside PPACA have been rising at lower and lower rates. Your "much higher" people are all those who were simply trying to scam the system and now are not allowed to do so anymore. Nobody should feel sorry for these so-called people at all.

No worries, Michelle and I will turn this thing around in the next 24 months and the DNC will anoint me as the leader in waiting or maybe the Architect like Rowe? God knows I don't want to go back to Chicago and work in Real Estate with the likes of Tony Rezko

What a jerkoff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jonathan Gruber Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Sure. Selected stakeholders, not including all
> or
> > those they didn't want to have any input, done
> in
> > the background so that the concessions made
> > wouldn't be apparent.
>
> Go stick your head back in the Heritage Foundation
> toilet, dumbo.
>

It's exactly the case. They cut deals out of public view with drug and insurance companies in order to take them out of opposition to the law and tailored it to protect their interests at the expense of those most affected who had little to no input.

> > You can keep saying it, but it won't make it
> true.
>
> YOU are saying it. The most comparable
> plan on the exchange you tell us is a
> bottom-of-the-barrel Bronze Plan, and it still
> costs more than what you have now? That's because
> the plan you have now doesn't cover anything and
> doesn't pay anything. That's what makes it cheap.
> It's also what makes it non-compliant. Bite the
> bullet here, jerkoff. Go pay for something that
> doesn't lean on the rest of us to pick up the tab
> for whatever you can't or simply refuse to pay
> for.

I gave you the details of both plans. The plan that I have is not "crappy insurance." It is typical of a relatively high-deductible plan formerly purchase by the self employed. It does in fact cover most things as they are covered in the compliant plans at a lower cost with a larger network. Mine is not a unique situation. The same applies to the vast majority of those of us who were in the individual market. This was very easy to see last year. You could go to the exchange and off-marketplace brokers and directly compare the prices and coverage levels for roughly equivalent plans.

Nobody picked up our health care bills. We were/are the ones on the hook for the medical bills regardless what insurance you had. Maybe you should focus on those who had no insurance, most of which remain uninsured even after the Act. Likewise, if you have a problem with catastrophic types of plans which were a small minority of those plans purchased, then you still have a problem because they're still available under Obamacare.


>
> > That's bullshit and I've schooled you on this
> > several times before.
>
> Ah, another former Cy Young Award winner. Aren't
> internet resumés fun?
>
> > The vast majority of individual policies were
> > basically the same as employer-provided plans
> at
> > somewhat higher cost since you don't have the
> > group leveling of risks and volume discounts
> (or
> > employer contribution obviously).
>
> And exactly none of those people are losing their
> plans as any result of PPACA. The doofus whiner
> people are those whose plans have not already been
> cancelled by the issuer and who kept renewing
> those and similar plans when they knew full well
> they were going to be closed for being substandard
> even with years of warning of what was coming.
> This is like complaining about a 50-in-a-35
> speeding ticket just after driving past four signs
> saying SPEED LIMIT 35. Sorry about your dumbness.
> Pay the fine.

Yes, they are losing their plans. As an example, Aetna no longer offers any of the previous individual plans in VA. Only though a joint venture now with Inova using their own network. We have no choice as far as keeping our existing plans. Knowing that we had to change doesn't change the fact that we have to change as a direct result of the law.

What a jerkoff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jonathan Gruber Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It's only 'budget neutral' because they gamed
> the
> > numbers as Gruber describes by grabbing claimed
> > revenues up front and pushing major costs out
> > beyond the time frame for CBO analysis. As
> > Elmendorf has noted in his presentations
> regarding
> > the costs numerous times.
>
> Bullshit, you lying simpleton assfuck. The
> further out you go, the BETTER the budget effects
> become. The fact that trying to craft a long-term
> care package to meet Congressional requirements
> was tabled worsens the picture slightly, but your
> 10- and 20-year data easily remain deficit
> reductions.

Wrong. Go look at Elmendorf's presentations on the broader long-term budget where they do take into account the effects. The costs rise significantly. It doesn't even drop the cost of health care generally as was claimed. That's also expected to rise greatly in the out-years.


>
> > The question was regarding those affected by
> > Obamacare to date. The formerly uninsured
> poor
> > receiving significant subsidies and those
> formerly
> > in the high-risk pools who were added are an
> even
> > smaller percentage of the individual market and
> > about the only ones who are paying less. The
> > costs for everyone else formerly in the
> individual
> > market generally are much higher for the same
> or
> > lesser coverage.
>
> Horse hockey. Unlike the pikers and skinflints
> you seek to defend, most people in the individual
> market were already purchasing compliant coverage
> or had their non-compliant policies pulled by the
> issuer at some point over the past four years and
> so moved into a compliant plan at that time. The
> costs of all of these are moving in line with
> increases in the cost of health care coverage
> generally, which for reasons both inside and
> outside PPACA have been rising at lower and lower
> rates. Your "much higher" people are all those
> who were simply trying to scam the system and now
> are not allowed to do so anymore. Nobody should
> feel sorry for these so-called people at all.


You're clueless. First of all, there were no compliant plans to buy to switch to until last year. Second, most of those who had existing policies did not move to the new plans. That was kind of the whole point of the one-year extension granted. This year they have to and you're about to hear from all of them in a few days when the exchange opens and the new plans are offered at even higher rates than last year.

The only increases which are in line with anything are the comparisons of year-over-year premium costs for the compliant plans versus last year. That doesn't consider the large increases in moving to the compliant plans.

Once again, they dropped a ton of poor and high-risk people into what was a relatively small pool. At the same time, they increased coverage requirements for everyone. Of course the costs are going to be higher as a result. There are no economies of scale in this case. Every subsidized, higher-risk person and the cost for every expanded benefit increases the costs.

Jonathan Gruber Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wrong. Go look at Elmendorf's presentations on
> the broader long-term budget where they do take
> into account the effects. The costs rise
> significantly. It doesn't even drop the cost of
> health care generally as was claimed. That's also
> expected to rise greatly in the out-years.

Typical jerkoff stupidity. The budget as a whole is tons of stuff other than PPACA. Why are you trying to hide like some hapless squid behind those numbers instead of focusing on PPACA by itself? I'll tell you why -- it's because you are a know-nothing dumbfuck who is arguing out his ass.

> You're clueless.

No, you're an asshole. Pay attention here.

> First of all, there were no compliant plans to
> buy to switch to until last year.

What? Compliant and Cadillac plans have always been available in the individual market. Of course, nobody labeled them as such because the relevant standards hadn't been written yet. You are just making dumber and dumber claims as you go along.

> Second, most of those who had existing policies
> did not move to the new plans. That was kind of
> the whole point of the one-year extension granted.

Assfuck, more than 80% of the substandard plans that were grandfathered from March 2010 had been terminated by the carrier by March 2014. They couldn't be changed and they weren't any longer profitable. When their turn came to get the axe, most people simply bought some form of compliant coverage rather than go through the same termination bullshit all over again.

> This year they have to and you're about to hear
> from all of them in a few days when the exchange
> opens and the new plans are offered at even higher
> rates than last year.

Dumbasses never run out of shit to say. What else is new?

> The only increases which are in line with anything
> are the comparisons of year-over-year premium
> costs for the compliant plans versus last year.
> That doesn't consider the large increases in
> moving to the compliant plans.

You are not allowed to carry substandard coverage any more, dumbass. Getting rid of leeches is one of the points here. If you have some religious objection, there's an out available. If you think it's all evil socialism, just pay the penalty instead. But you can't buy crap and claim you have coverage anymore. Either pay up or fuck off.

> Once again, they dropped a ton of poor and
> high-risk people into what was a relatively small
> pool. At the same time, they increased coverage
> requirements for everyone. Of course the costs
> are going to be higher as a result. There are no
> economies of scale in this case. Every
> subsidized, higher-risk person and the cost for
> every expanded benefit increases the costs.

By a level of mathematics that I'm sure goes right over your hollow little head (arithmetic), the TOTAL cost of heath care is SUPPOSED to go up. That's part of the plan. Morons of course may have missed out on that.

What a jerkoff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jonathan Gruber Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Wrong. Go look at Elmendorf's presentations on
> > the broader long-term budget where they do take
> > into account the effects. The costs rise
> > significantly. It doesn't even drop the cost
> of
> > health care generally as was claimed. That's
> also
> > expected to rise greatly in the out-years.
>
> Typical jerkoff stupidity. The budget as a whole
> is tons of stuff other than PPACA. Why are you
> trying to hide like some hapless squid behind
> those numbers instead of focusing on PPACA by
> itself? I'll tell you why -- it's because you are
> a know-nothing dumbfuck who is arguing out his
> ass.


I said the effects of the law on the broader long-term budget. They did not directly score the out-years in the direct analysis. They do consider the effects in the longer-term forecasts.


>
> > You're clueless.
>
> No, you're an asshole. Pay attention here.
>
> > First of all, there were no compliant plans to
> > buy to switch to until last year.
>
> What? Compliant and Cadillac plans have always
> been available in the individual market. Of
> course, nobody labeled them as such because the
> relevant standards hadn't been written yet. You
> are just making dumber and dumber claims as you go
> along.

No, they were not. There were no compliant plans until last year. The closest that you would find would be the same plan that I currently have as I described above. It still is not technically compliant. Nor are Cadillac plans. Nor are most employer-provided plans.

>
> > Second, most of those who had existing policies
>
> > did not move to the new plans. That was kind of
>
> > the whole point of the one-year extension
> granted.
>
> Assfuck, more than 80% of the substandard plans
> that were grandfathered from March 2010 had been
> terminated by the carrier by March 2014. They
> couldn't be changed and they weren't any longer
> profitable. When their turn came to get the axe,
> most people simply bought some form of compliant
> coverage rather than go through the same
> termination bullshit all over again.
>

No, they didn't. Most who could do so took advantage of the extension. According to McKinsey's estimates about 3/5ths of those previously insured stayed with what they had, with about 2/5ths moving to exchange plans. Using CMS' numbers, the individual market is about 25 - 27 million people. Only about 7.1 million signed up for plans through the exchanges. That includes those who did not have insurance previously.


> > This year they have to and you're about to hear
>
> > from all of them in a few days when the exchange
>
> > opens and the new plans are offered at even
> higher
> > rates than last year.
>
> Dumbasses never run out of shit to say. What else
> is new?
>
> > The only increases which are in line with
> anything
> > are the comparisons of year-over-year premium
> > costs for the compliant plans versus last year.
>
> > That doesn't consider the large increases in
> > moving to the compliant plans.
>
> You are not allowed to carry substandard coverage
> any more, dumbass. Getting rid of leeches is one
> of the points here. If you have some religious
> objection, there's an out available. If you think
> it's all evil socialism, just pay the penalty
> instead. But you can't buy crap and claim you
> have coverage anymore. Either pay up or fuck off.


The vast majority of plans were not "substandard," they simply do not meet specific administrative coverage requirements of the law. In many cases, as I gave you for my own, they offer better coverage at a better cost. The leeches were the ones who weren't buying insurance to begin with which wasn't the bulk of the individual market. We had insurance.


>
>
> > Once again, they dropped a ton of poor and
> > high-risk people into what was a relatively
> small
> > pool. At the same time, they increased
> coverage
> > requirements for everyone. Of course the costs
> > are going to be higher as a result. There are
> no
> > economies of scale in this case. Every
> > subsidized, higher-risk person and the cost for
> > every expanded benefit increases the costs.
>
> By a level of mathematics that I'm sure goes right
> over your hollow little head (arithmetic), the
> TOTAL cost of heath care is SUPPOSED to go up.
> That's part of the plan. Morons of course may
> have missed out on that.


Oh, so that's what they meant by "reducing the average family premium costs by $2,500" and ""premium costs lower than your cell phone bill" and "bending the cost curve." They just neglected to specify that it was bending the costs UPWARD. lmao

Jonathan Gruber Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I said the effects of the law on the broader
> long-term budget. They did not directly score the
> out-years in the direct analysis. They do
> consider the effects in the longer-term
> forecasts.

Why are you even bothering? It is already perfectly clear that you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. Long-term numbers from CBO note that PPACA reduces the deficit over its first ten years. Even more over its next ten.

You further don't understand the difference between total costs, cost-versus GDP ratios, and per capita costs. This is because your are just a clueless fucking dumbass.

What a jerkoff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Why are you even bothering? It is already
> perfectly clear that you don't know your ass from
> a hole in the ground. Long-term numbers from CBO
> note that PPACA reduces the deficit over its first
> ten years. Even more over its next ten.
>
> You further don't understand the difference
> between total costs, cost-versus GDP ratios, and
> per capita costs. This is because your are just a
> clueless fucking dumbass.


What's clear is that you have no clue what you're talking about beyond some tired, 4 year old political talking points of the same sort that Gruber now admits were used to sell this pig. Open season starts again in a few days so it will be back in the news cycle again and you'll have an opportunity to catch up with the reality.

Rick Perry's Think Tank Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> “...redneck idiot Texans ...”

Are you kidding me?

.
Attachments:

So, “Excellent Post” and “Greybeard” are also “Hey Goober” What is he just talking to himself on here all day long?

Dear libtard...hurr...durr, you ignorant faggot...
Attachments:

Jonathan Gruber Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Open season starts again in a few days so it will
> be back in the news cycle again and you'll have an
> opportunity to catch up with the reality.

Reality is that you are a completely worthless whiner jerkoff.

causeican Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, “Excellent Post” and “Greybeard” are
> also “Hey Goober” What is he just talking to
> himself on here all day long?

These are your Gods, I assume? You worship them, do you?