DescentBB

I will agree, but I would respectfully point out the IRS (and yes this administrations) blatant attacks on the Teaparty, as a predominant reason that the Teaparty support is dwindling.

CUDA wrote:I will agree, but I would respectfully point out the IRS (and yes this administrations) blatant attacks on the Teaparty, as a predominant reason that the Teaparty support is dwindling.

maybe where you live, but in this state(Delaware) it is ENTIRELY due to the Christine O'Donnell fiasco, and the folks I've talked to down South seem to have come to the realization that the movement is destructive of the nation and the GOP, both. Neither of them would seem to have a damn thing to do with the IRS, the administration, etc. For instance, what role did the IRS have in the recent debacle which brought the nation to the brink of financial disaster and put a bunch of people on furlough for 3 weeks? What did the administration have to do with Tea Party zealots taking over GOP primaries and leading to losses at the polls?

callmeslick wrote:... and the folks I've talked to down South seem to have come to the realization that the movement is destructive to the status quo and the GOP in particular, both. ...

There, I fixed it for you to make it much more acurate. Nothing the Tea Party has done has caused any destruction to the nation.
They are a wake up call to many but some of their tactics are like a wrecking ball to the status quo. The nations welfare shrugs at the whole thing because the ball is on a short chain and the nation, as a whole, stands out of range.
But give the liberals a little more impunity and the reaction to the results might create a tipping point where the nation a leans closer to that ball...

the only reason they haven't SERIOUSLY hurt this nation, Will, is that they are a minority, and a dwindling one at that. Now, mind you, if they were a majority, with control of the White House, they could pass legislation and not bring the nation to it's knees, but at the cost of still destroying both the economy and the social safety net at the same time. Sorry, but I'll pass on that option, and fight like hell against it.

Just why to hell would some super rich person want to get rid of social security….motive or no crime.

Spidey wrote:Just why to hell would some super rich person want to get rid of social security….motive or no crime.

lower taxes. Social security, while capped to salary levels for some workers, is also taxed for those of us who hire landscapers, domestic help, etc.. For an extremely wealthy person with, say, 50 people on staff, you can get to talking real money, if that individual is a cheapskate. From what I've ever read about the Koch family, with them it is more a matter of rejecting a government operated social safety net, on principle, more than to save money.

Ok, but the desired replacement with a private system, may be misguided (only an opinion) but certainly not some evil plan.

And also up to debate…in a proper democracy.

replacement with a private system is NOT what they are after. They want no system, save individuals who can afford to do so saving for themselves. That leaves about 50% of the current population screwed, with another 40% catching up to them quickly. Not good.

I'm calling bullfeces on the rightwinger politicians desire to end social security. And Koch and similar ultra rich don't have the votes or the money to buy enough votes to replace all the votes a politician would lose if they tried to end SS....

Its a stupid bit of left wing rhetoric just like saying the rightwinger wants to starve scool children and poison the water.

If Obama really wanted ACA to work he would have put the NSA in charge because they know how to handle volume

The job they have done instead, with three+ years to build the system and hundreds of millions of dollars, is remarkably terrible!

They should just hired google to build and run the whole thing. Would have called it googlecare.

When I try to do some research on Koch and Social Security…all I get are hundreds of propaganda sites…


I guess I’ll just have to take slick's word on it.

You know, the thing about government sites... I was going to a government site for my state and was greeted by a notice "This site functions best on Internet Explorer 7 or 8, and may not function properly under alternative browsers such as Firefox or Chrome.". It still displayed the same message when I tried it using IE (because I only have IE10), also the site easily looked to be a 10 year old design. Government sites are crap, because government sucks at technology (excluding military technology).

On the case of healthcare.gov not working properly, one has to keep in mind that the site itself (meaning the front-end portion which actually serves up pages) both looks and works quite well. Don't believe me? Go load it yourself, you will find that it serves up the page quite quickly, the server is responsive and the layout is decent. What doesn't work so well is the gigantic and overly complicated back-end mess of disjointed databases from 50 different states and hundreds of different agencies.

Will Robinson wrote:If Obama really wanted ACA to work he would have put the NSA in charge... The job they have done instead, with three+ years to build the system and hundreds of millions of dollars, is remarkably terrible!

The NSA is also terrible. They failed to stop the Boston bombings. Can't really compare the two since the NSA has been around a long time and has a well developed infrastructure. And, the NSA is way more expensive. Healthcare.gov has allowed hundreds of thousands of people to use the site in just a few weeks. That's pretty good considering the complexity of the job. They aren't selling wingnuts you know.

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:Just why to hell would some super rich person want to get rid of social security….motive or no crime.

lower taxes. Social security, while capped to salary levels for some workers, is also taxed for those of us who hire landscapers, domestic help, etc.. For an extremely wealthy person with, say, 50 people on staff, you can get to talking real money, if that individual is a cheapskate.

Most of the wealthy people I know pay those people cash money or treat them as subcontractors and file 1099's at the end of the year.

callmeslick wrote:From what I've ever read about the Koch family, with them it is more a matter of rejecting a government operated social safety net, on principle, more than to save money.

Perhaps you could link us to some non-biased sites where you get your info.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:From what I've ever read about the Koch family, with them it is more a matter of rejecting a government operated social safety net, on principle, more than to save money.

Perhaps you could link us to some non-biased sites where you get your info.

Not Possible!

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:If Obama really wanted ACA to work he would have put the NSA in charge... The job they have done instead, with three+ years to build the system and hundreds of millions of dollars, is remarkably terrible!

The NSA is also terrible. They failed to stop the Boston bombings. Can't really compare the two since the NSA has been around a long time and has a well developed infrastructure. And, the NSA is way more expensive. Healthcare.gov has allowed hundreds of thousands of people to use the site in just a few weeks. That's pretty good considering the complexity of the job. They aren't selling wingnuts you know.

We will pretend a hundred thousand people in a few weeks is actually something to be happy with even though 3 times that lost coverage in just one day in just one state...

But was that one hundred thousand successful sign ups that were able to actually finalize their selections and purchase coverage? Or just the other 99,999 people who got as far as I did, in that we "signed up" giving the site our basic family info, and then were cut off, site locked up?!?
Considering the administrations efforts to avoid real numbers of completed 'sign ups' I'm going to be skeptical and then, if so, with only one hundred thousand, I'm still underwhelmed!

looks like more people are losing their health-care then are signing up for Dem-care. 300,000 in Florida alone by year end. wonder how long it will take before the first law suits start happening by those that lost healthcare and needed it because of this law, and were not able to "purchase " it because of the administration miss-management of it

woodchip wrote:Most of the wealthy people I know pay those people cash money or treat them as subcontractors and file 1099's at the end of the year.

apparently, my family has a higher ethical standard. We paid one maid SS contributions for 26 years.

[

oh, and I'm quite sure you all will note that this is hardly an unbiased site, but the facts(regarding things like newspaper editorials) are verifiable.
http://www.alternet.org/story/153027/me ... _democracy

Not one word in that article on the brothers wanting to destroy SS, and from all of the running around I did yesterday, all I could nail down as “facts” were they are trying to raise the retirement age and cut some benefits. (or raise eligibility, or some such)

As far as I’m concerned, we do need to raise the retirement age, because we are living and working longer, and there is less than a handful of people working for every person receiving benefits.

I didn’t look into what kind of reduced benefits they were trying to get, because it took way to long just to get to one simple fact.

After going thru many websites last night, I have to say the left make Sean Hannity look like a piker. (regarding outright lies)

My view is the left uses the Koch bros as a focal point to try and destroy a grass roots organization that they (the left) fears more for political self survival than for any concerns about SS, medicare or the economic well being of the country.

CUDA wrote:looks like more people are losing their health-care then are signing up for Dem-care. 300,000 in Florida alone by year end. wonder how long it will take before the first law suits start happening by those that lost healthcare and needed it because of this law, and were not able to "purchase " it because of the administration miss-management of it

the Florida numbers are bogus. Those policies are discontinued because they do not meet the minimal standards for coverage. In all cases there, the holders will be able to replace them with better policies at a lower overall cost with subsidies.

Spidey wrote:Not one word in that article on the brothers wanting to destroy SS, and from all of the running around I did yesterday, all I could nail down as “facts” were they are trying to raise the retirement age and cut some benefits. (or raise eligibility, or some such)

As far as I’m concerned, we do need to raise the retirement age, because we are living and working longer, and there is less than a handful of people working for every person receiving benefits.

I didn’t look into what kind of reduced benefits they were trying to get, because it took way to long just to get to one simple fact.

After going thru many websites last night, I have to say the left make Sean Hannity look like a piker. (regarding outright lies)

either you can't or didn't read the article. It cites, quite clearly, the editorials the grandfather wrote against SS, and further the efforts made by the younger generation to gut it.

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:looks like more people are losing their health-care then are signing up for Dem-care. 300,000 in Florida alone by year end. wonder how long it will take before the first law suits start happening by those that lost healthcare and needed it because of this law, and were not able to "purchase " it because of the administration miss-management of it

the Florida numbers are bogus. Those policies are discontinued because they do not meet the minimal standards for coverage.

The White House wrote:“We’ve got some good news for you. If you currently have private health insurance, you should be able to keep it, and that’s exactly what the health care law says. It’s not a question of opting out of health reform — the idea that individuals who like their insurance should keep it is a central part of the law.”

so those 300,000 people in Florida were lied to by some one. should we venture to guess who????

In all cases there, the holders will be able to replace them with better policies at a lower overall cost with subsidies.

Prove it. because I don't think you can

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:looks like more people are losing their health-care then are signing up for Dem-care. 300,000 in Florida alone by year end. wonder how long it will take before the first law suits start happening by those that lost healthcare and needed it because of this law, and were not able to "purchase " it because of the administration miss-management of it

the Florida numbers are bogus. Those policies are discontinued because they do not meet the minimal standards for coverage. In all cases there, the holders will be able to replace them with better policies at a lower overall cost with subsidies.

So all of us in Michigan whose plans were dropped by Blue Cross had inferior plans? And yeah if you qualify for subsidies but how about if you don't?

CUDA wrote:...

slick-the-omniscient wrote: In all cases there, the holders will be able to replace them with better policies at a lower overall cost with subsidies.

Prove it. because I don't think you can

Same here. You have a habit of making declarations without any support. Can you show us how you know, in all those cases, they can get a better policy at a better price from the new paradigm created by implementation of the ACA?

Generally speaking insurance companies don't throw away customers, if those customers carriers had a product for them at a same or better price the customers would be reported to have new policies...not that they now have NO policy! If their old policy was dropped and they can't sign up then the fact remains that they lost coverage due to the ACA and can't get it due to the ACA!

The campaign slogan was they get to keep their coverage if they like it. No, apparently not.
The promise was they can get coverage from the ACA. No, apparently not.
Will they eventually? Hopefully.
Are they covered now? No.
Why? Because of the broken promise that is the ACA.

too early to get final prices for the replacement policies, but all the cancelled plans failed to cover mental health care, certain gynocological care items, and other minimal coverage. Let's wait to see how much people REALLY are paying for coverage before the regularly-scheduled panic mongering occurs. Given the generous subsidies, and expansion of Medicaid(which covers those minimal items), I highly doubt that ANYONE carrying such crap insurance won't be not only better off when coverage is needed, but paying less to boot.

$10000 dollars a year, 1/5 of our income and that's with a $6000 dollar deductible!

and your subsidy, as you are under the max for same?

callmeslick wrote:too early to get final prices for the replacement policies, but all the cancelled plans failed to cover mental health care, certain gynocological care items, and other minimal coverage. Let's wait to see how much people REALLY are paying for coverage before the regularly-scheduled panic mongering occurs. Given the generous subsidies, and expansion of Medicaid(which covers those minimal items), I highly doubt that ANYONE carrying such crap insurance won't be not only better off when coverage is needed, but paying less to boot.

SO what you're saying is that you have no clue and your making ★■◆● up to cover your earlier comments

I havn't got that far yet. There is some kind of pool, I think Woodchip mentioned something about those, but I don't know anything about it yet. I hope it's a deep pool because I got a piece of disk compressing over 50% of my spinal cord, but I don't have $6000.00 bucks! We haven't decided yet, but so far that's what it's looking like and that's for the lowest tiered package. The deal is probably in the second tier but I got more to find out yet. Still, a huge jump and increase.

You could do what some Americans are resorting to, offshore surgery. It's a lot cheaper, if you can trust it.

LOL, I don't trust onshore doctors! Most doctors have been denigrated down to pill peddlers and assumptions. The only way to get an accurate diagnoses is through testing.

Yep.

CUDA wrote:

callmeslick wrote:too early to get final prices for the replacement policies, but all the cancelled plans failed to cover mental health care, certain gynocological care items, and other minimal coverage. Let's wait to see how much people REALLY are paying for coverage before the regularly-scheduled panic mongering occurs. Given the generous subsidies, and expansion of Medicaid(which covers those minimal items), I highly doubt that ANYONE carrying such crap insurance won't be not only better off when coverage is needed, but paying less to boot.

SO what you're saying is that you have no clue and your making **** up to cover your earlier comments

my comments earlier were based on simple math, the rules and common sense. No links available to you for those.

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:

callmeslick wrote:too early to get final prices for the replacement policies, but all the cancelled plans failed to cover mental health care, certain gynocological care items, and other minimal coverage. Let's wait to see how much people REALLY are paying for coverage before the regularly-scheduled panic mongering occurs. Given the generous subsidies, and expansion of Medicaid(which covers those minimal items), I highly doubt that ANYONE carrying such crap insurance won't be not only better off when coverage is needed, but paying less to boot.

SO what you're saying is that you have no clue and your making **** up to cover your earlier comments

my comments earlier were based on simple math, the rules and common sense. No links available to you for those.

If it was common math that supports your claim and you also say we need to wait until the prices are available to see then just what the hell were the numbers in your simple math, where did they come from and please link them!
I think the url for that link is going to look something like: slicks.rectum/pulledfromthere.yuk

I can see a problem in the future, if these ACA policies become better and less costly than the ones provided by employers…you will see a lot of people move from their employer provided coverage to the exchanges…and at that point the subsidies will become a huge problem, and I mean HUGE!

Unless of course it’s illegal to drop private coverage to get on the exchange…and so far I have not heard that.

That's true Spidey and we do have that option. Probably my biggest hesitation over leaving a group plan. Mainly because I think the ACA at it's core is just a means to an end. If the group plans are more costly but there is a shared pool (not sure about this yet) among the insured. It might be sustainable. If everyone opts for the subsidies, it's unsustainable. They still need a certain percentage of people to sign up and actually make the payments for the ACA to succeed. If it does fail, there will be no going backwards. I don't know why we go this route instead of making viable existing and long standing social security nets.

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:

callmeslick wrote:too early to get final prices for the replacement policies, but all the cancelled plans failed to cover mental health care, certain gynocological care items, and other minimal coverage. Let's wait to see how much people REALLY are paying for coverage before the regularly-scheduled panic mongering occurs. Given the generous subsidies, and expansion of Medicaid(which covers those minimal items), I highly doubt that ANYONE carrying such crap insurance won't be not only better off when coverage is needed, but paying less to boot.

SO what you're saying is that you have no clue and your making **** up to cover your earlier comments

my comments earlier were based on simple math, the rules and common sense. No links available to you for those.

If it was common math that supports your claim and you also say we need to wait until the prices are available to see then just what the hell were the numbers in your simple math, where did they come from and please link them!
I think the url for that link is going to look something like: slicks.rectum/pulledfromthere.yuk

ROFLOL

I'm wondering what he is basing his "Simple Math" calculation on. 1+1 still requires that you know what 1 is before you can do your calculations.
I still want to know how he will back up this statement

slick-the-omniscient wrote: In all cases there, the holders will be able to replace them with better policies at a lower overall cost with subsidies.