cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Senior Advisor

Re: Did you miss don's post?


@bruce MN wrote:

The one where he expalined to you that the people who had voted for and signed the ACA didn't "get what they wanted" in this excercize?  They simply kept what they already had. Nothing more.

 

There were no winners as a result of this waste of time and money.  Only confimed losers.


Al most for got to mention Bruce the really big winners. The insurance companies. The government has now guaranteed them they get to keep 20% [not sure of the exact number] of the premiums for over head. The higher the payout the more they get to keep. All they have to do is increase premiums and the government will ante up. 20% of  $20,000/insured is much better than 20% of $10,000/insured. Talk about life's winners.

Senior Contributor

Re: different ways to go

Sam  better explain your graph because it makes no sense and doesn't even come close to the definition of a parabolica graph.

I know I'm poor at math Probably should contact my sil who teaches higher math.

And yes I know I'm being snotty.

But if you are going to use something better be prepared to explain it and be darn sure it is right and what you say.

Senior Contributor

Re: Did you miss don's post?

I thought from the start that Cruz was barking up the wrong tree.   Not that I'm a fan of Obamacare, but he was fighting a battle he couldn't win.   He had 2/3 of the gov't against him, and was only a part of a faction of the majorty of the 3rd part.

Instead of trying to 'kill' it, I think he should have spent his time arguing that every line of the Obamacare law needs to be followed, that the law should be upheld, with no special treatment of anyone, for any reason.   If the law says you must enroll, but don't get a subsidy, you don't get a subsidy.

Then, the House could have put forward a resolution to fund everything, on the condition the law is followed to the letter.

When it came back as too 'unfair', they put forward a reloution, that gives EVERYONE another year to enroll.  Anyone that wanted to, could enroll, but if it wasn't going to be mandatory for everyone, it shouldn't be mandatory for anyone.

With that argument, Cruz would have had the high ground, so to speak, of asking why the Dems didn't want to follow the law they wrote, or why some people were 'more equal' than others.

Senior Advisor

Re: Did you miss don's post?

Your comment confirms that you wish to use the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip. The debt ceiling does not spend or increase spending. Congress is responsible for al;l spending. Either this congress or previous congresses. And the current congress has the power to legislate changes in spending. However, if you want specific changes you will have to elect people that will do so. It still takes the power of persuasion or the clout of an elected majority to be certain of success. Yes you have to persuade the president or you may receive a veto.

 

Using the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip is illogical. Do you really think a minority can cast their will on a majority? And the threat of a presidential veto? They really had no chance from the beginning and stronger minds knew that. Obama learned a lesson in 2011. That you cannot yield to Intimidation. It would only give the opposition a bigger appetite and we would have the same all over again.

 

Your best bet is to elect more insanity until you get a majority and you might want a new president to solidify your majority. Until then buck up and try to cope. All this public whining is apt to make you sick.

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Advisor

Re: Did you miss don's post?

Do you have even so much as an elementary understanding of the exchanges?

 

You're not going to stop in your hatred of all things this and  that, but at least try to update your information from time to time.

 

The only way to read what you just said in that post is that it will be a bad thing is too many people obtain insurance because the insurance companies will increase their revenue( DOOH!).  I thought you were an ardent capitalist? 

Advisor

Re: different ways to go

Its basically parabolic. Y=x^2.  

 

In all things money a parabolic rise is almost always followed by a similarly steep fall.   Debt falling that fast would mean something very bad had happened.  

 

Hope this helps.

Senior Advisor

Re: Congratulations to the liberals

Yeah your right sammy. Those dumb canadians, Brits, frenchies and krauts are all living in a facist state. And that is not even including the scandanavians. All those oppressed people from our next door neighbors to all of western europe. All in a communist socialist fascist state. There simply is no hope for them if they aren't completely bridled by the capitalists.

 

BY Gawd i don't want no socialist healthcare. I want corporate america to rip me off.  Whats good for general motors and Humana is good for america!

Advisor

BTW 3020

I'll fully admit that the enrollment mess is going to be a night mare. Looks lke a general cluster#### to me. But it will be worked out because it has to be.  There will certaubly be changes in directorship, consultants and administration.  One of the big problems I'm hearing about is that the insurance companies didn't get prepared in any manner and naively assumed that the engine would purr at first ignition.  That doesn't happen in anything big, public or private.

 

It's not going to come on line smoothly.  But it's also not going away.  We just found out that we're not going back, much as you may hate that.

Senior Advisor

Re: BTW 3020

The state were supposed to prepare exchanges and get them set up right. Some states are signing alot of clients up and others are a mess.. I see senator Pat Roberts asking for a Sibielious resignation. Nothing like having a neighborhood food fight on the national stage. Like its her fault that everything is not performing perfectly.

Advisor

This Humana?