Based on the 47 page study I provided, which is the most comprehensive study to date regarding obamacare and it's relationship to premiums in the individual insurance market, would you agree that nearly all states have seen higher premium increases under obamacare than they would have had they continued on their current trend without obamacare?

Posted by moy23 on 11/4/2014 5:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/4/2014 12:36:00 AM (view original):
Hmmm what exactly do you think single quotation marks are used for?

Technically.... For quoting quotes inside a quote which is rarely used... Or to highlight a title of a poem which I clearly was not doing. That's precisely why I use them to highlight something I want to stand out (next time I'll use *** ***). I suppose I didn't even need to use apostrophes in the first place because 'directly attributed' is redundant anyways. Surely you would know that attributed means *** resulting from a SPECIFIC cause *** , in this case the specific cause was obamacare. I love how you get hung up on semantics rather than answering the question when you don't like the question being asked or when it's not in your favor. Laughable.

Hmmmm.....this must not be going well for BL as he's now going full on grammar rules to avoid the discussion at hand.

Posted by moy23 on 11/4/2014 5:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/4/2014 12:36:00 AM (view original):
Hmmm what exactly do you think single quotation marks are used for?

Technically.... For quoting quotes inside a quote which is rarely used... Or to highlight a title of a poem which I clearly was not doing. That's precisely why I use them to highlight something I want to stand out (next time I'll use *** ***). I suppose I didn't even need to use apostrophes in the first place because 'directly attributed' is redundant anyways. Surely you would know that attributed means *** resulting from a SPECIFIC cause *** , in this case the specific cause was obamacare. I love how you get hung up on semantics rather than answering the question when you don't like the question being asked or when it's not in your favor. Laughable.

It looked to me like you were using them as quotation marks which would mean that you were quoting from somewhere.

I still don't know what you're asking me.

My entire point is that the DC headline was misleading when compared to the actual health pocket study.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/4/2014 8:11:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/4/2014 5:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/4/2014 12:36:00 AM (view original):
Hmmm what exactly do you think single quotation marks are used for?

Technically.... For quoting quotes inside a quote which is rarely used... Or to highlight a title of a poem which I clearly was not doing. That's precisely why I use them to highlight something I want to stand out (next time I'll use *** ***). I suppose I didn't even need to use apostrophes in the first place because 'directly attributed' is redundant anyways. Surely you would know that attributed means *** resulting from a SPECIFIC cause *** , in this case the specific cause was obamacare. I love how you get hung up on semantics rather than answering the question when you don't like the question being asked or when it's not in your favor. Laughable.

Hmmmm.....this must not be going well for BL as he's now going full on grammar rules to avoid the discussion at hand.

I asked moy what he was quoting (the thing he put in quotation marks didn't exist). He's the one going full grammar breakdown.

Posted by moy23 on 11/4/2014 5:45:00 AM (view original):
Based on the 47 page study I provided, which is the most comprehensive study to date regarding obamacare and it's relationship to premiums in the individual insurance market, would you agree that nearly all states have seen higher premium increases under obamacare than they would have had they continued on their current trend without obamacare?

I haven't read the 47 page study, are you insane? Have you read it?

Obamacare never had a shot to lower healthcare premiums.  Sure, it was sold that way to Americans who either wanted to believe or weren't paying attention (or both), but the number of healthy individuals you'd have to sign up to balance the scales is unattainable, especially with the toothless penalties.  Obamacare was designed to put us one step closer to the single-payer system liberals love so much.  We are now at a point where Obamacare can't be repealed, because anyone seeking to do so would be shouted down with the "you can't take coverage away from people" emotional rhetoric.  Much like meaningful welfare reform can't be approached without the "you can't take money away from poor people" shouting.  We'll soon be hearing the argument that it's inhumane to take insurance away from the American people, and that these numbers would change if everyone were buying their insurance through the same place.  That the government can't exercise the leverage needed to lower premiums without more people on the government exchange plans.  The same people who believed before will believe that as well, and welcome to single-payer.  Kudos to the liberals for pulling it off.  Once again they've created an expanded base of invested voters, to the great detriment of many working Americans.

The worst part is, the conservatives have brought this on themselves.  Their inability to make any kind of rational argument, with common sense clearly on their side in many cases, is unbelievably disheartening.  They're too easily distracted by meaningless B.S. (I couldn't give a sh*t if Obama played golf right after a press conference on ISIS - I'd want to play golf and download for a few hours too if the fate of the free world rested largely on my shoulders) to put together a resonant argument in favor of what's best for the country.  Maybe they don't even know.  I fear we're at a point now where people become politicians for the fame and money.  If no one truly cares about doing right by the American people, pandering to the lowest common denominator is the easiest, most effective way to keep the camera time and campaign contributions coming.  And both parties seem content to do just that.

This is the first year of my life that I filled out my ballot thinking that, even if every issue goes the way I voted, I still have probably not won anything in the grand scheme of things.

20 years from now, you won't recognize the current ACA with the health care plan that's in place.    But, yeah, universal health care is here to stay.

And, no, conservatives have no clue on how to handle liberal ideology at this moment.  The only thing stopping the US from becoming a one party system is the fact that the people aren't thrilled with how the Dems run things.

Posted by examinerebb on 11/4/2014 9:17:00 AM (view original):
Obamacare never had a shot to lower healthcare premiums.  Sure, it was sold that way to Americans who either wanted to believe or weren't paying attention (or both), but the number of healthy individuals you'd have to sign up to balance the scales is unattainable, especially with the toothless penalties.  Obamacare was designed to put us one step closer to the single-payer system liberals love so much.  We are now at a point where Obamacare can't be repealed, because anyone seeking to do so would be shouted down with the "you can't take coverage away from people" emotional rhetoric.  Much like meaningful welfare reform can't be approached without the "you can't take money away from poor people" shouting.  We'll soon be hearing the argument that it's inhumane to take insurance away from the American people, and that these numbers would change if everyone were buying their insurance through the same place.  That the government can't exercise the leverage needed to lower premiums without more people on the government exchange plans.  The same people who believed before will believe that as well, and welcome to single-payer.  Kudos to the liberals for pulling it off.  Once again they've created an expanded base of invested voters, to the great detriment of many working Americans.

The worst part is, the conservatives have brought this on themselves.  Their inability to make any kind of rational argument, with common sense clearly on their side in many cases, is unbelievably disheartening.  They're too easily distracted by meaningless B.S. (I couldn't give a sh*t if Obama played golf right after a press conference on ISIS - I'd want to play golf and download for a few hours too if the fate of the free world rested largely on my shoulders) to put together a resonant argument in favor of what's best for the country.  Maybe they don't even know.  I fear we're at a point now where people become politicians for the fame and money.  If no one truly cares about doing right by the American people, pandering to the lowest common denominator is the easiest, most effective way to keep the camera time and campaign contributions coming.  And both parties seem content to do just that.

This is a two-way street really.  Yes, conservatives are to blame for not making a rational argument.  The problem is that the people you are trying to reach don't respond to rational arguments.

I've had discussions about a myriad of issues (yes I have an opinion on them first, so I have taken a side), only to find that almost nobody I talk to understands anything about what they believe and why they believe it.  For example:

     1.  What happens when tax rates go down across the board (and the associated provable facts of what happens to treasury revenue and share of the tax burden)?
     2. Is a 400% interest rate on small value short term loans (otherwise known as payday loans) "insane" or "predatory"?  Why or why not?
     3. If government limits the price that doctors are allowed to charge, what happens to the supply of doctors?  (See what happens when usury limits are applied to the payday loan industry)
     4. Is CEO pay too high?  Why or why not?  (Should the government do something about that?
     5. Is the right to choose abortion for women based on whether the fetus is a life?  (You'd be surprised at what people cite for justification for choice)
 
These are just a few.  I bring them up because in my experience, it doesn't matter how rational your argument is when people are irrational in their expectations and not motivated enough to peal back their own layers of thought.  Try having a rational conversation about abortion with people.  It happens, but it's pretty rare.  In my case, I know there is a rational side to the pro-choice argument - I disagree with it, but it can be discussed.  But the public argument is nothing but hysterics and misrepresentation. 

With an agenda-driven press (I know this from personal family experience) and power hungry politicians in both parties, you won't get rationality unless the public as a whole demands it.  The public is way too concerned with their tech devices and pop culture to care about substance....or becoming rational.

Good questions.

1) There is an inverse correlation between tax rates and treasury revenue, due largely to behavioral response.  Historically, the lower the tax rate, the larger percentage tax revenue represents of the GDP.

2) As long as the terms are clearly disclosed, the loans are not predatory.  Predatory lending involves hidden fees/rates/terms.  They prey on the poor no more than state-sanctioned lotteries, which offer far less in return.

3) The supply of doctors decreases.  Even worse, when demand for doctors rises to a tipping point and charges are still capped, the only solution is to lower standards.

4) CEO pay is driven by market demand.  The numbers are insane to most of us but, if a company always looking to maximize profits could do so simply by changing wages at a single position in the company, I'm quite sure that they would.  It boils down to a half-baked argument on behalf of worker's rights, that overlooks the fact that the CEO is also an employee of the Company (a worker).  Every worker in that company could strive to become CEO.  However, it is much easier to punch in, punch out after 8 hours, and complain about how much someone else makes.  No, the government should not do something about it.

5) No, I don't believe that it is.  I believe that is an argument used to support the position, but that the main justification is "my body, my choice".

Posted by examinerebb on 11/4/2014 9:17:00 AM (view original):
Obamacare never had a shot to lower healthcare premiums.  Sure, it was sold that way to Americans who either wanted to believe or weren't paying attention (or both), but the number of healthy individuals you'd have to sign up to balance the scales is unattainable, especially with the toothless penalties.  Obamacare was designed to put us one step closer to the single-payer system liberals love so much.  We are now at a point where Obamacare can't be repealed, because anyone seeking to do so would be shouted down with the "you can't take coverage away from people" emotional rhetoric.  Much like meaningful welfare reform can't be approached without the "you can't take money away from poor people" shouting.  We'll soon be hearing the argument that it's inhumane to take insurance away from the American people, and that these numbers would change if everyone were buying their insurance through the same place.  That the government can't exercise the leverage needed to lower premiums without more people on the government exchange plans.  The same people who believed before will believe that as well, and welcome to single-payer.  Kudos to the liberals for pulling it off.  Once again they've created an expanded base of invested voters, to the great detriment of many working Americans.

The worst part is, the conservatives have brought this on themselves.  Their inability to make any kind of rational argument, with common sense clearly on their side in many cases, is unbelievably disheartening.  They're too easily distracted by meaningless B.S. (I couldn't give a sh*t if Obama played golf right after a press conference on ISIS - I'd want to play golf and download for a few hours too if the fate of the free world rested largely on my shoulders) to put together a resonant argument in favor of what's best for the country.  Maybe they don't even know.  I fear we're at a point now where people become politicians for the fame and money.  If no one truly cares about doing right by the American people, pandering to the lowest common denominator is the easiest, most effective way to keep the camera time and campaign contributions coming.  And both parties seem content to do just that.

I agree with a lot of this. Repealing obamacare won't happen. Its too far down the road to turn back. Unfortunately Obamacare is going to hurt more people financially and medically (with less doctors accepting certain insurance as well as further commutes to hospitals). It is what it is.

Republicans do fail to frame issues big time. Lay off the crazy religious right social values, not totally but enough that they don't look like religious zealots. Stick to less taxes, smaller govt. Thats a great shtick. Be proud to be rich, rather than ashamed. Leverage that against dems... I became rich in this land of opportunity and I can help you get rich too... Whereas democrat conterparts just want you to get by. People want leadership.

The biggest problem for republicans is the low information bunch - how to you frame an argument to ignorant people? I was reading my Facebook and one of my friends was going off on how Rauner bankrupted 12 companies with his Private Equity firm. Private equity firms invest in businesses to help them with raising capital - they don't actually manage the business, especially the day to day stuff - and sometimes you find the next Google or Apple, and sometimes you lose and get the business that goes bankrupt.... But try and explain that to a low information liberal, not happening. So that's a vote for quinn cause Rauner bankrupts businesses and kills babies (which is the other slam).

Talking down to people tends to shut them off from what you're saying.    Read your last sentence as if someone was reading it to you and describing you.   How far past "the low information bunch - how to you frame an argument to ignorant people" did you get?

Conservatives do that a lot more than liberals.   Liberals talks that way about cons when they think no cons are around but cons do it constantly regardless of audience. 

And, for the record, "You can be rich like me" is probably the worst campaign slogan of all-time.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/4/2014 1:21:00 PM (view original):
Talking down to people tends to shut them off from what you're saying.    Read your last sentence as if someone was reading it to you and describing you.   How far past "the low information bunch - how to you frame an argument to ignorant people" did you get?

Conservatives do that a lot more than liberals.   Liberals talks that way about cons when they think no cons are around but cons do it constantly regardless of audience. 

Lol.... Its true low information voters need some sugar coating - maybe I can hire lady gaga to help get my message across.

Honestly I figured the crowd in here could handle my point without me having to beat around the bush.

The softer version is how do you intellectually cater to someone for a vote when they care more about what Kim Kardashian is doing than what's in the wall street journal. To people that get their political news from a comedian because its ***more entertaining*** that way. Sadly, more people today can tell you who Justin Beiber is than Joe Biden when shown a picture of the two.

Posted by moy23 on 11/4/2014 1:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/4/2014 1:21:00 PM (view original):
Talking down to people tends to shut them off from what you're saying.    Read your last sentence as if someone was reading it to you and describing you.   How far past "the low information bunch - how to you frame an argument to ignorant people" did you get?

Conservatives do that a lot more than liberals.   Liberals talks that way about cons when they think no cons are around but cons do it constantly regardless of audience. 

Lol.... Its true low information voters need some sugar coating - maybe I can hire lady gaga to help get my message across.

Honestly I figured the crowd in here could handle my point without me having to beat around the bush.

The softer version is how do you intellectually cater to someone for a vote when they care more about what Kim Kardashian is doing than what's in the wall street journal. To people that get their political news from a comedian because its ***more entertaining*** that way. Sadly, more people today can tell you who Justin Beiber is than Joe Biden when shown a picture of the two.

The Wall Street Journal...a world class news organization with an Op/Ed section run by Montgomery Burns.