If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Examiner)   You can retire, but you can't hide. Newly-released emails of IRS' Lois Lerner reportedly show that she committed a felony by sending private information about those conservative groups to the FEC. That's a no-no, of course   (examiner.com) divider line 390
    More: Followup, Lois Lerner, Fe C, Federal Election Commission, IRS, watchdog journalism, Judicial Watch, confidential information, felony  
•       •       •

2467 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Nov 2013 at 10:04 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



390 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-03 03:53:26 PM  

lantawa: grumpfuff: Got it.

You are ignorant regarding the insurance business and the revenue/actuarial system of rating risk. And no, you don't "got it."


So you claim. But you've yet to offer any sort of any actual explanation or refutation. Simply saying "No, you're wrong," does not make you right.
 
2013-11-03 04:20:26 PM  

grumpfuff: lantawa: grumpfuff: Got it.

You are ignorant regarding the insurance business and the revenue/actuarial system of rating risk. And no, you don't "got it."

So you claim. But you've yet to offer any sort of any actual explanation or refutation. Simply saying "No, you're wrong," does not make you right.


I'll close with this:  I hope that the ACA works out to be a manageable and fiscally sound program.

Fair enough?
 
2013-11-03 04:27:14 PM  

lantawa: grumpfuff: lantawa: grumpfuff: Got it.

You are ignorant regarding the insurance business and the revenue/actuarial system of rating risk. And no, you don't "got it."

So you claim. But you've yet to offer any sort of any actual explanation or refutation. Simply saying "No, you're wrong," does not make you right.

I'll close with this:  I hope that the ACA works out to be a manageable and fiscally sound program.

Fair enough?


Which has nothing to do with my understanding of how insurance works.
 
2013-11-03 04:35:22 PM  

grumpfuff: lantawa: grumpfuff: lantawa: grumpfuff: Got it.

You are ignorant regarding the insurance business and the revenue/actuarial system of rating risk. And no, you don't "got it."

So you claim. But you've yet to offer any sort of any actual explanation or refutation. Simply saying "No, you're wrong," does not make you right.

I'll close with this:  I hope that the ACA works out to be a manageable and fiscally sound program.

Fair enough?

Which has nothing to do with my understanding of how insurance works.


Okay................................................................. . .............
 
2013-11-03 04:43:57 PM  

Fart_Machine: http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2013/08/01/republica n s-demand-communications-between-irs-and-fec/


Page not found.  Try again.

Maybe this was the inquiry that led to this story?
 
2013-11-03 05:22:44 PM  

HeadLever: Fart_Machine: http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2013/08/01/republica n s-demand-communications-between-irs-and-fec/

Page not found.  Try again.

Maybe this was the inquiry that led to this story?


Yes you can't link properly from a phone but it's pretty easy if you remove the spaces or do a simple google search for the story. The point is they already had these emails and the Commission didn't move on any federal charges. So unless you're saying that Issa is covering this up there is no there there.
 
2013-11-03 05:39:02 PM  

lantawa: grumpfuff: lantawa: grumpfuff: lantawa: grumpfuff: Got it.

You are ignorant regarding the insurance business and the revenue/actuarial system of rating risk. And no, you don't "got it."

So you claim. But you've yet to offer any sort of any actual explanation or refutation. Simply saying "No, you're wrong," does not make you right.

I'll close with this:  I hope that the ACA works out to be a manageable and fiscally sound program.

Fair enough?

Which has nothing to do with my understanding of how insurance works.

Okay................................................................. . .............


You burst into the thread throwing your credentials around saying I have no idea how insurance works. You've yet to actually support that assertion.

Just because we may agree on the ACA, doesn't mean you get a pass for dishonest debate. Unlike some people around here, I'm not gonna blindly support someone just because they agree with me. You're no better than the people who post long screeds about whatever the outrage of the day is without a single fact or citation, then declare themselves right. The only difference is, you get a [yournothelping.jpg] instead of a [ohwaityourseriousletmelaughharder.jpg].
 
2013-11-03 05:43:53 PM  

Fart_Machine: The point is they already had these emails and the Commission didn't move on any federal charges.


Nope.  Per your link - the request was made due to 'We have serious concerns that this e-mail exchange demonstrates a continued pattern of the IRS unlawfully sharing confidential taxpayer information with others outside the agency'.  Hence the request.  again, it seems like this request led to this story.
 
2013-11-03 06:01:13 PM  

HeadLever: Fart_Machine: The point is they already had these emails and the Commission didn't move on any federal charges.

Nope.  Per your link - the request was made due to 'We have serious concerns that this e-mail exchange demonstrates a continued pattern of the IRS unlawfully sharing confidential taxpayer information with others outside the agency'.  Hence the request.  again, it seems like this request led to this story.


Um no.  They already had these particular e-mails hence they wouldn't have been able to verify and release what was in them.

Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) and Rep. Charles Boustany (R-La.) released e-mails on Wednesday suggesting that Lois Lerner, the embattled former head of the IRS's exempt-organizations division, revealed to the lawyer that a conservative group had not been approved for tax-exempt status.

This was several months ago.  The only thing that has come out since then from Issa is that the IRS may have been using private e-mails to communicate information.

JW getting a copy of them via the FOIA is simply a rehash of this story.
 
2013-11-03 06:26:04 PM  

mjm323s: I don't even watch Fox News, Hannity, Limbaugh or any one of them


Then how is it your diatribe sounds like a laundry list of talking points?
 
2013-11-03 06:50:01 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: mjm323s: I don't even watch Fox News, Hannity, Limbaugh or any one of them

Then how is it your diatribe sounds like a laundry list of talking points?


Not sure, I am not attacking the president or anything like that, just using my reasoning to why I don't think certain policies are beneficial. Maybe because you are not listening or intelligent enough to comprehend instead you choose to go to that argument because you spent too much time on this board with like minded individuals that find it conveniently used to cheer on your side.
 
2013-11-03 06:52:34 PM  

mjm323s: Sergeant Grumbles: mjm323s: I don't even watch Fox News, Hannity, Limbaugh or any one of them

Then how is it your diatribe sounds like a laundry list of talking points?

Not sure, I am not attacking the president or anything like that, just using my reasoning to why I don't think certain policies are beneficial. Maybe because you are not listening or intelligent enough to comprehend instead you choose to go to that argument because you spent too much time on this board with like minded individuals that find it conveniently used to cheer on your side.


Meanwhile, you ignore or dismiss every counter-argument, don't bother to cite any of your claims, and once someone points out your errors, you just start a new, clean post, saying exactly the same thing as the previous one.
 
2013-11-03 07:02:02 PM  

grumpfuff: lantawa: grumpfuff: lantawa: grumpfuff: lantawa: grumpfuff: Got it.

You are ignorant regarding the insurance business and the revenue/actuarial system of rating risk. And no, you don't "got it."

So you claim. But you've yet to offer any sort of any actual explanation or refutation. Simply saying "No, you're wrong," does not make you right.

I'll close with this:  I hope that the ACA works out to be a manageable and fiscally sound program.

Fair enough?

Which has nothing to do with my understanding of how insurance works.

Okay................................................................. . .............

You burst into the thread throwing your credentials around saying I have no idea how insurance works. You've yet to actually support that assertion.

Just because we may agree on the ACA, doesn't mean you get a pass for dishonest debate. Unlike some people around here, I'm not gonna blindly support someone just because they agree with me. You're no better than the people who post long screeds about whatever the outrage of the day is without a single fact or citation, then declare themselves right. The only difference is, you get a [yournothelping.jpg] instead of a [ohwaityourseriousletmelaughharder.jpg].


Cry harder....
 
2013-11-03 07:02:11 PM  

grumpfuff: mjm323s: Sergeant Grumbles: mjm323s: I don't even watch Fox News, Hannity, Limbaugh or any one of them

Then how is it your diatribe sounds like a laundry list of talking points?

Not sure, I am not attacking the president or anything like that, just using my reasoning to why I don't think certain policies are beneficial. Maybe because you are not listening or intelligent enough to comprehend instead you choose to go to that argument because you spent too much time on this board with like minded individuals that find it conveniently used to cheer on your side.

Meanwhile, you ignore or dismiss every counter-argument, don't bother to cite any of your claims, and once someone points out your errors, you just start a new, clean post, saying exactly the same thing as the previous one.


Ok I was hoping you went back to read the post to see that I did answer. Anyway, your argument is that there are going to be a large amount of individuals that are going to enter the exchange that will keep the costs low? If your answer is yes, pleas re-read my previous post of why I think this is wrong.

There were a la carte insurance plans and catastrophic policies that made sense to a lot of people as they were on a budget. These are gone and people that had these plans have to get more expensive plans. Like the other poster I also hope the ACA works out. But I have strong doubts.

I hope this is sufficient to your question. If you have any additional please be specific what you want me to address.
 
2013-11-03 07:08:53 PM  

mjm323s: grumpfuff: mjm323s: Sergeant Grumbles: mjm323s: I don't even watch Fox News, Hannity, Limbaugh or any one of them

Then how is it your diatribe sounds like a laundry list of talking points?

Not sure, I am not attacking the president or anything like that, just using my reasoning to why I don't think certain policies are beneficial. Maybe because you are not listening or intelligent enough to comprehend instead you choose to go to that argument because you spent too much time on this board with like minded individuals that find it conveniently used to cheer on your side.

Meanwhile, you ignore or dismiss every counter-argument, don't bother to cite any of your claims, and once someone points out your errors, you just start a new, clean post, saying exactly the same thing as the previous one.

Ok I was hoping you went back to read the post to see that I did answer. Anyway, your argument is that there are going to be a large amount of individuals that are going to enter the exchange that will keep the costs low? If your answer is yes, pleas re-read my previous post of why I think this is wrong.

There were a la carte insurance plans and catastrophic policies that made sense to a lot of people as they were on a budget. These are gone and people that had these plans have to get more expensive plans. Like the other poster I also hope the ACA works out. But I have strong doubts.

I hope this is sufficient to your question. If you have any additional please be specific what you want me to address.


My argument is that you are posting personal opinion and calling it "facts" and "math." Individual points I've made are simply representations of that.
 
2013-11-03 07:09:58 PM  

lantawa: grumpfuff: lantawa: grumpfuff: lantawa: grumpfuff: lantawa: grumpfuff: Got it.

You are ignorant regarding the insurance business and the revenue/actuarial system of rating risk. And no, you don't "got it."

So you claim. But you've yet to offer any sort of any actual explanation or refutation. Simply saying "No, you're wrong," does not make you right.

I'll close with this:  I hope that the ACA works out to be a manageable and fiscally sound program.

Fair enough?

Which has nothing to do with my understanding of how insurance works.

Okay................................................................. . .............

You burst into the thread throwing your credentials around saying I have no idea how insurance works. You've yet to actually support that assertion.

Just because we may agree on the ACA, doesn't mean you get a pass for dishonest debate. Unlike some people around here, I'm not gonna blindly support someone just because they agree with me. You're no better than the people who post long screeds about whatever the outrage of the day is without a single fact or citation, then declare themselves right. The only difference is, you get a [yournothelping.jpg] instead of a [ohwaityourseriousletmelaughharder.jpg].

Cry harder....


Calling you out for not supporting a claim you made =/= crying.

/itrollyou.jpg?
 
2013-11-03 07:15:56 PM  

mjm323s: There were a la carte insurance plans and catastrophic policies that made sense to a lot of people as they were on a budget. These are gone and people that had these plans have to get more expensive plans.


Those plans, by and large, covered nothing. I have yet to see an actual, honest to god great, cheap, catastrophic plan being taken down by the ACA. What I've seen is shiat like they offered at one of my old work places, $120/month with a $10,000 deductible and 50% co-pay for everything over that. It's good that they're gone.

In addition, there are going to be subsidies for those "on a budget".
 
2013-11-03 07:24:30 PM  

grumpfuff: mjm323s: grumpfuff: mjm323s: Sergeant Grumbles: mjm323s: I don't even watch Fox News, Hannity, Limbaugh or any one of them

Then how is it your diatribe sounds like a laundry list of talking points?

Not sure, I am not attacking the president or anything like that, just using my reasoning to why I don't think certain policies are beneficial. Maybe because you are not listening or intelligent enough to comprehend instead you choose to go to that argument because you spent too much time on this board with like minded individuals that find it conveniently used to cheer on your side.

Meanwhile, you ignore or dismiss every counter-argument, don't bother to cite any of your claims, and once someone points out your errors, you just start a new, clean post, saying exactly the same thing as the previous one.

Ok I was hoping you went back to read the post to see that I did answer. Anyway, your argument is that there are going to be a large amount of individuals that are going to enter the exchange that will keep the costs low? If your answer is yes, pleas re-read my previous post of why I think this is wrong.

There were a la carte insurance plans and catastrophic policies that made sense to a lot of people as they were on a budget. These are gone and people that had these plans have to get more expensive plans. Like the other poster I also hope the ACA works out. But I have strong doubts.

I hope this is sufficient to your question. If you have any additional please be specific what you want me to address.

My argument is that you are posting personal opinion and calling it "facts" and "math." Individual points I've made are simply representations of that.


The math is all these people with pre-existing conditions are going to enter the health pool the fact is this is going to cause insurance to go up. The flawed premise of the ACA is that people that did not have insurance before are going to enter and be willing and able to pay for the insurance, because of this law. Am I missing anything?

Sorry I did not keep reposting I started to comment but several of your comments were straw man arguments of things I do not believe I said
 
2013-11-03 07:28:16 PM  

mjm323s: Am I missing anything?


The subsidy.
 
2013-11-03 07:34:03 PM  

grumpfuff: /itrollyou.jpg?


No.

Just grow up. When someone gives you an option to exit gracefully and with some dignity left intact, take it. Otherwise, you're just digging yourself in derper and derper, showing off your outstanding lack of the insurance industry's operations with greater and greater breathtakingness.

Moral risks, morale risks, and preexisting physical disease conditions are all indicators of unacceptable conditions for accepting health insurance clients, and a part of the insurance underwriting processes. You want a "cite?" Here's a cite. Go buy your State's Official Insurance Coursework Book, and then study for and pass your State's Health and Life Insurance State Exam. That's your "cite." Do with it what you want. And while we're at it, you and I do NOT agree on the ACA. I simply said that I hope that it works out reasonably. It probably won't.
 
2013-11-03 07:38:30 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: mjm323s: There were a la carte insurance plans and catastrophic policies that made sense to a lot of people as they were on a budget. These are gone and people that had these plans have to get more expensive plans.

Those plans, by and large, covered nothing. I have yet to see an actual, honest to god great, cheap, catastrophic plan being taken down by the ACA. What I've seen is shiat like they offered at one of my old work places, $120/month with a $10,000 deductible and 50% co-pay for everything over that. It's good that they're gone.

In addition, there are going to be subsidies for those "on a budget".


Whew, thank goodness there are people like you to tell us what is good for us. If that is the cheapest premium and I don't go to the doctor for as long as I have it, it's a great plan.
From the healthcare.gov website on these plans you have to get an exemption to have them and are required to pay the standard price. So no subsidy and while they do seem to be available still(which I may have been wrong about) Im not sure if this is referring to those being grandfathered in and they will be completely eliminated in the near future
 
2013-11-03 07:40:29 PM  

lantawa: Study it out.


imageshack.us
 
2013-11-03 07:41:53 PM  

mjm323s: If that is the cheapest premium and I don't go to the doctor for as long as I have it, it's a great plan.


Look, if you're just going to hand over your money every month and expect nothing back, why not send it to me?
 
2013-11-03 07:48:02 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: mjm323s: If that is the cheapest premium and I don't go to the doctor for as long as I have it, it's a great plan.

Look, if you're just going to hand over your money every month and expect nothing back, why not send it to me?


Before ACA it was an option not to pay insurance premiums and not expect anything back, that's not the case any more.

What do you mean when you talk about trolling? If I was on here saying absolutely ridiculous hateful things about your side, I can see why that would be considered trolling. Am I doing that?
 
2013-11-03 08:18:20 PM  

mjm323s: Before ACA it was an option not to pay insurance premiums and not expect anything back, that's not the case any more.


mjm323s: What do you mean when you talk about trolling? If I was on here saying absolutely ridiculous hateful things about your side, I can see why that would be considered trolling. Am I doing that?


Different flavors of trolling. We suspect you're being disingenuous and not arguing with any other intent than to get us to respond angrily. You can do this by saying hateful things, or you can do as you've done, repeatedly restate the initial argument as if no one has been able to debunk it.
 
2013-11-03 08:24:10 PM  
Go ahead. FARK, eat my links.

mjm323s: Before ACA it was an option not to pay insurance premiums and not expect anything back, that's not the case any more.



imageshack.us imageshack.us
 
2013-11-03 08:37:00 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: lantawa: Study it out.

[imageshack.us image 600x109]


i466.photobucket.com
 
2013-11-03 08:59:45 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Go ahead. FARK, eat my links.

mjm323s: Before ACA it was an option not to pay insurance premiums and not expect anything back, that's not the case any more.


 


If you are going to debate a topic you should have a basic knowledge of the topic. I gave you a site and the subject, you can do some work yourself with a simple search. But I guess based on your political leaning you expect me to do the work for you.

I have restated several times what I believe your argument is and why I think it is wrong asking for specifics what I failed to address with your response just being some crap about talking points. I can't fix stupid. I'm out.
 
2013-11-03 09:43:58 PM  

mjm323s: I have restated several times what I believe your argument is and why I think it is wrong asking for specifics what I failed to address with your response just being some crap about talking points.


You'd have to respond with something besides talking points and cease trying to reframe my argument on your terms. Don't pitch some moronic bullshiat talking point like "the ACA deprives us of the freedom to go without health insurance", especially bullshiat that's been flung before, and expect to get taken seriously. That kind of "freedom" leads to 60% of all bankruptcies being caused by medical bills and medical costs that are double the first-world average for no good reason. Saying such a thing unironically is proof enough you're the one who needs basic knowledge of the topic.

We've had six years of this bullshiat, we know how to deal with it, we know what it's all about, and it's becoming easier to spot as the right gets increasing pants on the head retarded. Like the very first sentence of the original article, misrepresenting Lerner's position in government and ties to Obama.
 
2013-11-03 10:19:12 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: mjm323s: I have restated several times what I believe your argument is and why I think it is wrong asking for specifics what I failed to address with your response just being some crap about talking points.

You'd have to respond with something besides talking points and cease trying to reframe my argument on your terms. Don't pitch some moronic bullshiat talking point like "the ACA deprives us of the freedom to go without health insurance", especially bullshiat that's been flung before, and expect to get taken seriously. That kind of "freedom" leads to 60% of all bankruptcies being caused by medical bills and medical costs that are double the first-world average for no good reason. Saying such a thing unironically is proof enough you're the one who needs basic knowledge of the topic.

We've had six years of this bullshiat, we know how to deal with it, we know what it's all about, and it's becoming easier to spot as the right gets increasing pants on the head retarded. Like the very first sentence of the original article, misrepresenting Lerner's position in government and ties to Obama.


If you want to talk about legislation that reduces medical costs that are double the first world average, I am with you. This legislation does not address that topic at all. This legislation just like most legislation is going to benefit the lobbiest that have the money to spend and politicians that have caved and will receive campaign dollars for it. While my heart bleeds for the questionable 60% you say medical cause bankruptcy for, I do not believe that small percentage that do get a bad lot is reason enough to raise premiums thousands of dollars for the middle class... In life there are winners and losers by trying to save everyone you hurt the majority and when people see others in a similar predicament getting a free ride they try and game the system as well. People can come back from bankruptcy, it's not a death sentence. Whether you see it as a talking point or not, we make choices and we have to live with them. If I chose not to have health insurance and went bankrupt due to an accident, I should have known better, there are consequences. The government can't run anything efficiently so to trust them with this big project, I'm more than a little skeptical.

I appreciate you passion and I hope it works but our governments track record on programs is comparable to your opinion of the conservative media.
 
2013-11-03 11:13:48 PM  

lantawa: grumpfuff: /itrollyou.jpg?

No.

Just grow up. When someone gives you an option to exit gracefully and with some dignity left intact, take it. Otherwise, you're just digging yourself in derper and derper, showing off your outstanding lack of the insurance industry's operations with greater and greater breathtakingness.


See, here's the thing. I like learning. If I am, in fact, wrong, please, enlighten me. Educate me. Show me how I'm wrong. I fail to see how continually asking you to point out how and where I'm wrong is digging a hole. In fact, I don't even care - I'm not embarrassed to be wrong, and will fully admit it if shown to be so. But saying "I have credentials, and you're wrong," is not making your point.  


Moral risks, morale risks, and preexisting physical disease conditions are all indicators of unacceptable conditions for accepting health insurance clients, and a part of the insurance underwriting processes. You want a "cite?" Here's a cite. Go buy your State's Official Insurance Coursework Book, and then study for and pass your State's Health and Life Insurance State Exam. That's your "cite." Do with it what you want. And while we're at it, you and I do NOT agree on the ACA. I simply said that I hope that it works out reasonably. It probably won't.

You know, the first sentence gave me hope that you were finally going to point out how I'm wrong. But nope, just more of you saying "You're wrong because I said so." Though now I understand, at least I think. You want to go back to the old way. You think healthcare as a for-profit business is a-ok. That's something I can't accept. If your argument boils down to "It cuts into profit," well, here's my answer. I don't farking care.

As to passing my state exam? Why the hell would I do that? I don't want to be an insurance agent.
 
2013-11-03 11:18:11 PM  

mjm323s: The math is all these people with pre-existing conditions are going to enter the health pool the fact is this is going to cause insurance to go up.


Again, this is not "the math," this is you making an assertion with nothing to back it up short of what you think will happen.

mjm323s: The flawed premise of the ACA is that people that did not have insurance before are going to enter and be willing and able to pay for the insurance, because of this law.


So making sure everyone has health insurance and can afford it is a flawed plan? Those are some farked up morals you got there.

mjm323s: Am I missing anything?


As already mentioned, the subsidies. Also, apparently, a conscience.

mjm323s: Sorry I did not keep reposting I started to comment but several of your comments were straw man arguments of things I do not believe I said


Me directly quoting you is something you didn't say? Is your name Ted Cruz or Newt Gingrich? Also, which comments, specifically, were straw men? Because I can sit here and say "All your arguments were straw men" too.
 
2013-11-03 11:55:42 PM  

grumpfuff: mjm323s: The math is all these people with pre-existing conditions are going to enter the health pool the fact is this is going to cause insurance to go up.

Again, this is not "the math," this is you making an assertion with nothing to back it up short of what you think will happen.

mjm323s: The flawed premise of the ACA is that people that did not have insurance before are going to enter and be willing and able to pay for the insurance, because of this law.

So making sure everyone has health insurance and can afford it is a flawed plan? Those are some farked up morals you got there.

mjm323s: Am I missing anything?

As already mentioned, the subsidies. Also, apparently, a conscience.

mjm323s: Sorry I did not keep reposting I started to comment but several of your comments were straw man arguments of things I do not believe I said

Me directly quoting you is something you didn't say? Is your name Ted Cruz or Newt Gingrich? Also, which comments, specifically, were straw men? Because I can sit here and say "All your arguments were straw men" too.


1. People with pre existing conditions that have higher medical costs (say $800 a year) are required to be be added to the same insurance exchange of people that have an average amount of medical cost (say $200 a year). So in keeping it simple what is more? 1 person with a pre existing condition and 1 average person ($800 + 200= $1000/2=500) or 2 average people(200+ 200=400/2= 200). This is math and while it is an extremely dumbed down version it is a basic concept of how insurance premiums are figured.

2. While I think it would be great for everyone to have health insurance. The ACA makes some extremely bogus claims on how it was not going to cost anything and everyone could keep their same plans. As noble as your cause is, you are not exempt for the math. If they would have came out and said everyone can have health insurance and everyone premiums are going to go up $3,000 dollars that would not necessarily make it right but it would at least be honest. As far as your claim that everyone can afford health insurance, that too would be great but then we would not need the subsidies, unfortunately everyone can't afford health insurance so those that can, are required to subsidies those that can't.

3. I have mentioned the subsidies If I am on a budget living paycheck to paycheck and currently paying $0 a month on health insurance. We can both agree obtaining health insurance is going to be at least $100 a month, even if I get it subsidized I'm still paying $100 a month, I just get to write it off on my taxes and may get an extra $120 in tax return at the end of the year, it is going to have a very minimal effect on the average persons financial well being on a paycheck to paycheck basis.

4. Specifically the comment a while back when you asked me if people that have a heart attack are not going to go to the hospital as if I said they wouldn't since they did not have health insurance....See my previous post in regards to referring to people like Ted Cruz and Hannity, you use extremes and fail to understand most people are in the center. If you and your boy feel you must put me in a box of Republican politicians I ask that you please use Chrisn Christie with some Ron Paul foreign policy and respect for the Constitution sprinkled in.
 
2013-11-04 12:13:02 AM  

mjm323s: If they would have came out and said everyone can have health insurance and everyone premiums are going to go up $3,000 dollars that would not necessarily make it right but it would at least be honest.


Citation needed. It's not math until you show you work.
 
2013-11-04 12:22:50 AM  

Sergeant Grumbles: mjm323s: If they would have came out and said everyone can have health insurance and everyone premiums are going to go up $3,000 dollars that would not necessarily make it right but it would at least be honest.

Citation needed. It's not math until you show you work.


It's an estimate, there is no citation. Do you think insurance premiums are going down on a yearly basis?
 
2013-11-04 12:29:40 AM  
Look how smart I am, I just gave that estimate and found an article to back up my claim. It is a fact check on a Republican tweet but the source that backs the claim is credible. I'm on an Ipad so if the link is broken please use the information in the link to search the politicfact website. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/sep/04/republi can-national-committee-republican/republican-national-committee-says-h ealth-insuranc/
 
2013-11-04 12:42:43 AM  

mjm323s: Look how smart I am, I just gave that estimate and found an article to back up my claim. It is a fact check on a Republican tweet but the source that backs the claim is credible. I'm on an Ipad so if the link is broken please use the information in the link to search the politicfact website. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/sep/04/republi can-national-committee-republican/republican-national-committee-says-h ealth-insuranc/


Instead just google "benefits cafe UHC estimates premiums" it appears worse than I thought. This is bad guys.
 
2013-11-04 12:43:36 AM  

mjm323s: Look how smart I am, I just gave that estimate and found an article to back up my claim. It is a fact check on a Republican tweet but the source that backs the claim is credible. I'm on an Ipad so if the link is broken please use the information in the link to search the politicfact website. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/sep/04/republi can-national-committee-republican/republican-national-committee-says-h ealth-insuranc/


You did read that article, right?
Heathcare costs rose 29% during Barack Obama's term. Nowhere does it say this was the fault of the ACA, and indeed it says that the yearly rise in costs is LESS than those of the previous decade.
 
2013-11-04 12:49:24 AM  

Sergeant Grumbles: mjm323s: Look how smart I am, I just gave that estimate and found an article to back up my claim. It is a fact check on a Republican tweet but the source that backs the claim is credible. I'm on an Ipad so if the link is broken please use the information in the link to search the politicfact website. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/sep/04/republi can-national-committee-republican/republican-national-committee-says-h ealth-insuranc/

You did read that article, right?
Heathcare costs rose 29% during Barack Obama's term. Nowhere does it say this was the fault of the ACA, and indeed it says that the yearly rise in costs is LESS than those of the previous decade.


Yes, that did not take ACA on to consideration that was just the fact premiums are going up. What do you think of my 2nd reading assignment
 
2013-11-04 12:56:44 AM  

mjm323s: Instead just google "benefits cafe UHC estimates premiums" it appears worse than I thought. This is bad guys.


It's a mistake to believe a health insurance company as to the reason behind their price increases. They've raised rates well beyond inflation for the last 20 years. Now they actually have an excuse, even though it's what they should be doing anyway, insuring people.

The best solution is single payer. Everyone's in the risk pool.
 
Displayed 40 of 390 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report