New, Improved Obamacare Program Released On 35 Floppy Disks

Ad hominem. If you have evidence the authors did not properly conduct their study, then write to the editors and have it retracted.

Red herring.

Red herring.

Ad hominem.

Feel free to post some journal articles.

The study evaluated 893,658 major surgical operations from around the country from 2003 to 2007, and normalized the results for age, gender, income, geographic region, operation, and 30 background diseases.


Which 'risk' groups where you talking about that exclude: age, gender, income, geographic region, operation as well as 30 background diseases. Go on Joe - do tell.

LOL, no Michael pointing out your errors is not ad hominem, nor is it a red herring. The bottom line is instead of comparing comparable risk groups the author of your study chose to compare high risk groups to low risk groups. It didn't have a control group. That is the bottom line.

I will repeat myself yet again, why didn't the authors compare lower risk groups with government paid healthcare to comparable groups in private industry? Probably because it wouldn't advance their ideology. :) It wouldn't yield the results they wanted. You cannot normalize a orange into an apple Michael. That is the unfortunate truth for you and those like you.
 
CBO: CONgressional Budget Office

CBO’s estimate that the ACA will reduce aggregate labor compensation in the economy by about 1 percent over the 2017–2024 period—compared with what would have occurred in the absence of the act—is substantially larger than the estimate the agency issued in August 2010. At that time, CBO estimated that, once it was fully implemented, the ACA would reduce the use of labor by about one-half of a percent. That measure of labor use was calculated in dollar terms, representing the change in aggregate labor compensation that would result. Thus it can be compared with the reduction in aggregate compensation that CBO now estimates to result from the act (rather than with the projected decline in the number of hours worked).

CBO’s updated estimate of the decrease in hours worked translates to a reduction in full-time-equivalent employment of about 2.0 million in 2017, rising to about 2.5 million in 2024, compared with what would have occurred in the absence of the ACA. Previously, the agency estimated that if the ACA did not affect the average number of hours worked per employed person, it would reduce household employment in 2021 by about 800,000.25 By way of comparison, CBO’s current estimate for 2021 is a reduction in full-time-equivalent employment of about 2.3 million.
Thank the Gods we have these Central Planners organizing everything for us and bailed out the richest 0.01%. Just wonderfulishest. Hey, who needs 2.5 million jobs when we have the ACA instead. Grand-children, please grabhold of something, your grandparents are coming over for a visit - and you know how grandpa is if he doesn't get his free-goodies at your expense.

Given the millions of millions and trillions of regulations (to keep us 'free' Americans 'safe' from one another, oh, and Muslim Fundamentalists) it's little wonder everything is bland shitty chain-stores and chain fast-food and chain banks and chain everything. 99.9999% of Americans may know how to make a sandwich, but they'd be in violation of so many laws if they dared sell one to another adult - hell, they'd be in jail before the afternoon was over. Why would most Americans bother creating a business outside of rent-seeking? Given how 'Evil' the so-called Free-Markets are portraid - most wouldn't!

(it should be noted, that while illegal to sell you a sandwich, 'free' 'brave' Americans are allowed by their political masters to make a sandwich and give, trade or sell it to their children. At least for now. We'll see how long that holds out, I mean "DON'T you care for the children!?!" Perhaps parents should be required to buy a State Licence to certify they know how to make sandwiches for their children, I mean, sandwiches is dangerous I tell's ya).


Do enjoy your ObamaCare.


As an aside, I read that an Australia Politician was suggesting Australians will either have to (1) pay much higher taxes (2) lose much of their public healthcare or (3) reduce pension for the aged that own their own home. Which do you think the "Middle Class" is going to go for? I'm guessing now that they've imported 1 out of 3 voters - the idea of the elderly home owner needing to 'reverse mortgage' their house to the State .... that will sound promising to the Middle Class voter. Oh, what interesting times we live in.

Welcome to Democracy, Middle Class style. You didn't Build that home on your own! Other people helped you build that home! Think of "the Nation". Think of "the Children". Think of.... the sweeeeet deal you can have on Thai-Chilli Australian flavored soylent green. Cheap as Chips too.


BBC: 'Obamacare' will reduce US workforce, report finds

The reductions will begin in 2017 after the law's provisions take full effect, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said in its report. Lower-income workers will be hardest hit, limiting their hours to avoid losing federal subsidies. Employees may also face lower wages due to tax levees and penalties against their employers, the report found.

THANK THE GODS we have Central Planers in our Central Government taking care of our AMA-Controlled healthcare for them, errrr us.
I mean *GASP* imagine if poor little-people had the freedom to buy and sell healthcare goods and services with only the laws against fraud and protections of private property rights to look after us... ... nope, we're all just too f*cking stupid to look after ourselves. Hope you like your leash - as a 'Free' "Citizen" - it's pretty Gawd Damn short.
 
Last edited:
LOL, no Michael pointing out your errors is not ad hominem, nor is it a red herring. The bottom line is instead of comparing comparable risk groups the author of your study chose to compare high risk groups to low risk groups. It didn't have a control group. That is the bottom line.
One more time Joe: The study evaluated 893,658 major surgical operations from around the country from 2003 to 2007, and normalized the results for age, gender, income, geographic region, operation, and 30 background diseases.

So, again, which 'risk' groups where you talking about that exclude: age, gender, income, geographic region, operation as well as 30 background diseases. Go on Joe - do tell. The fact is you're simply babbling.
 
Mmmmmmm Thai-Chili Australian flavored soylent greeeeeeeeen......


images

+
soylent-green-20101221003025905-000.jpg
 
One more time Joe: The study evaluated 893,658 major surgical operations from around the country from 2003 to 2007, and normalized the results for age, gender, income, geographic region, operation, and 30 background diseases.

So, again, which 'risk' groups where you talking about that exclude: age, gender, income, geographic region, operation as well as 30 background diseases. Go on Joe - do tell. The fact is you're simply babbling.

LOL, yeah repeating crap ad nauseum will not make it taste any better or make it any less false. This is Statistics 101. You don't compare different things and say they are the same. It's just that simple. And let's not forget all the data, all the reports you have consistently overlooked and pretended don't exist. And let's not forget the questions you have repeatedly failed to answer, because you don't like the answer.
 
This is Statistics 101.
Straw Man fallacy.

The study evaluated 893,658 major surgical operations from around the country from 2003 to 2007, and normalized the results for age, gender, income, geographic region, operation, and 30 background diseases. So, again, which 'risk' groups where you talking about that exclude: age, gender, income, geographic region, operation as well as 30 background diseases. Go on Joe - do tell. The fact is you're still babbling.

Feel free to show how their meta-analysis was incorrect.
Feel free to provide some data to back up ANY of your personal bias claims.



As an aside, here's how I see this argument. I want people to actually receive affordable healthcare. I understand that, like everything else, this is most likely to be achieved in a society with sound money, private property rights, law and a free-market. You OTOH appear to want to stick your head in the sand and pretend like the same government that wasted $8.5 trillion losing two more wars, the same government that wastes $50 BILLION dollars a year in a Centrally Planned Department of Education (that qualifies functional illiterates with a Government "High" School diploma not worth the paper it's printed on) is going to *magically* provide value for money out of the barrel of a gun.

Sorry, but all empirical data suggests that is not going to happen.
ObamaCare will be as useless as the Government degree qualifications our functionally illiterate graduates carry around after 12 YEARS of Government "Education" and as safe as Government Housing slums.
 
Straw Man fallacy.

LOL, Michael, have you ever taken a course in logic?

The study evaluated 893,658 major surgical operations from around the country from 2003 to 2007, and normalized the results for age, gender, income, geographic region, operation, and 30 background diseases. So, again, which 'risk' groups where you talking about that exclude: age, gender, income, geographic region, operation as well as 30 background diseases. Go on Joe - do tell. The fact is you're still babbling.
Feel free to show how their meta-analysis was incorrect.
Feel free to provide some data to back up ANY of your personal bias claims.

Feel free to pay attention at any time. Denial is not a river in Northern Africa.

As an aside, here's how I see this argument. I want people to actually receive affordable healthcare. I understand that, like everything else, this is most likely to be achieved in a society with sound money, private property rights, law and a free-market. You OTOH appear to want to stick your head in the sand and pretend like the same government that wasted $8.5 trillion losing two more wars, the same government that wastes $50 BILLION dollars a year in a Centrally Planned Department of Education (that qualifies functional illiterates with a Government "High" School diploma not worth the paper it's printed on) is going to *magically* provide value for money out of the barrel of a gun.

Yeah you want people to have affordable healthcare like I want to win the lottery. It ain’t going to happen by wishing. And here is one of the many problems you continue to run away from, you cannot point to a single successful healthcare model that meets your criteria. I on the other hand have several – several which you have repeatedly ignored…pretending that they don’t exist. But the unfortunate reality for you is they do exist.

And the 8.5 trillion (an overstated number) you have repeatedly referenced has nothing to do with government paid healthcare. And has been repeatedly told to over the years, if you don’t like what government is doing, change it. Change the way we elect our representatives. Take the special interest money and corruption out of our political system. But no, you don’t want to do that. Instead you want to give those special interests all the power of government. Michael you have a problem with facts. Because your “facts” never add up, they are not facts. They are fantasies, deceptions and lies.

Sorry, but all empirical data suggests that is not going to happen.
ObamaCare will be as useless as the Government degree qualifications our functionally illiterate graduates carry around after 12 YEARS of Government "Education" and as safe as Government Housing slums.

What empirical data? You don’t have any. That is why your sponsors, the Koch brothers, have to pay for pseudo-science just like the cigarette and energy industries have done. Here is the bottom line in this discussion. Why did the authors of the paper you referenced compare high risk groups to low risk groups when they could have and should have compared low risk groups to low risk groups? You cannot normalize apples into oranges.

And your machinations about government education and housing slums are not true either. And they too have been proven to be false many times. Yet you continue to deny what is clearly in front of your nose. The US government doesn't own and rent buildings. It provides housing subsidies (i.e. Section 8 Housing) where the government pays the landowner directly.
 
That is why your sponsors, the Koch brothers, have to pay for pseudo-science blah blah blah.
Give me a break.
Do you have ANY evidence the Koch Brothers had anything to do with this study?
No, you don't.

As you haven't provided any links to any data suggesting their meta-analysis is incorrect, I'll have to assume you just made that up as well.

But, don't worry, ObamaCare isn't going away any time too soon. We still need to hire the Public Health Unions. Plus there's all those functionally illiterate quotes that will need to be met. Oh, we're not done with Public Healthcare for a long-shot. See those Public Housing Slums? That's Public Healthcare in 15-25 years. They didn't go away, people just go used to living like animals in rat-infested derelict Public Housing Projects often built atop Public Garbage Dumps. This is what people do. AND Americans are certainly no exception. In 25 years everyone will think it's 'normal' to die in Hospital. Just as they think it's 'normal' to put your infant into day supervision facilities at the age of 6 weeks old - during the fourth trimester.

That's what people do - normalize. One step in front of the other. Oh, they also like to steal. In the future, they're going to elect a demagogue. And he/she's going to pass a "tax" for the "good of the Nation" whereby anyone who owns property - will be taxed of the property. AND profits from rental schemes - those will also go to the State. You know, for the Good of the Nation. But hey, there's good ole' ObamaCare Public Nursing Homes coming - they'll take care of you real nice like.
 
BgJI1H-CQAApfsw.jpg


Obamacare: More Delays
Looks like firms with between 50-99 employees (you know, because 99 is a nice nearly-round number, which that makes good economic sense :bugeye: to a D.C. Bureaucrat, because it fits on a spreadsheet somewhere next to a box that needs to be ticked for promotion) will be given until just about the time Obama can get the hell out of office in 2016 to comply with the Law. Apparently Obama don't love children enough to ensure they are given access to good free top-quality public healthcare.... yuck yuck yuck.

In other news, the NSA has expanded surveillance on Citizens (for your safely from terrorists) speaking of which the US lost two Wars in the middle east to the tune of $8.5 trillion. How nice. Do enjoy the ObamaCare - that top-shelf Quality you've come to expect from a Public institution. Really premium stuff. Oh ho ho I forgot to mention, it's also free. AND nothing says 'value' like free. Hey, let's go bail out some more of the top 0.01%.
 
michael said:
BBC: 'Obamacare' will reduce US workforce, report finds

The reductions will begin in 2017 after the law's provisions take full effect, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said in its report. Lower-income workers will be hardest hit, limiting their hours to avoid losing federal subsidies. Employees may also face lower wages due to tax levees and penalties against their employers, the report found.
What the CBO report actually said is that people currently working more hours than they want to pay for the extraordinarily expensive and unusually privatized health care that is all one can find in the US will be able to cut back on the overtime and part time and second jobs and still afford health insurance once this Romneycare kicks in - one of its few benefits.

I currently work with a lot of guys who are holding down second and part time jobs for no other reason, and yes they would like to quit that - it's damaging to their health, for one thing - so the CBO report seems plausible to me.

I like the BBC in general, but in their efforts to maintain the form or nominal appearance of impartiality they occasionally retail rightwing propaganda and spin as if it were a legitimate point of view. And of course your bullshit detector was never installed.

michael said:
Oh, we're not done with Public Healthcare for a long-shot. See those Public Housing Slums? That's Public Healthcare in 15-25 years - - -

Apparently Obama don't love children enough to ensure they are given access to good free top-quality public healthcare...
Romneycare mandates private, not public, health insurance and health care delivery. That's private as in free market, competition driven, capitalist financed, largely for profit, health insurance and health care. There is not even a public option, like a buy-in to Medicare or the like, offered. Did you not know that? It was in all the news - that's why the capitalist free market advocate Romney favored the setup in the first place: it prevented socialized insurance, and guaranteed money for his country club millionaire buddies in the insurance business.

I have recommended to you before that you flip a coin before making assertions of fact, as a means of improving your accuracy percentage. Apparently you haven't adopted the tactic - you're running well under half right still.
 
Romneycare mandates private, not public, health insurance and health care delivery. That's private as in free market, competition driven, capitalist financed, largely for profit, health insurance and health care. There is not even a public option, like a buy-in to Medicare or the like, offered. Did you not know that? It was in all the news - that's why the capitalist free market advocate Romney favored the setup in the first place: it prevented socialized insurance, and guaranteed money for his country club millionaire buddies in the insurance business.
There are more regulations and laws regarding healthcare (actually disease care) than for any other industry - including finance (they both run neck and neck and there's so many millions of Government rules and regulations, it's hard to say which is actually the more regulated).

Thus, healthcare is not a 'free' market. It's a highly regulated market. Therefor, the word you're looking for is not 'profit' (which in a free market is a virtue) but 'spoils' which is also referred to as 'rent-seeking' if you'd prefer. I prefer spoils - regardless, they're synonyms.

In our hyper-regulated 'healthcare' market, being killed off by your "healthcare" is #3 on the likelihood to die of list. Which is no accident. Without an actual market to demand high quality, we get rent-seeking low quality. Thanks to a fiat monetary system, it's nearly impossible to find out what is or is not valuable anyway. So, let's just sit back and watch the public 'healthcare' option morph into a Public Hospital Slum-Care, only it'll be worse as it'll be run by for-spoils insiders who couldn't give two shits about healthcare; just like SlumLords. I don't have to wonder if this is going to happen - I know it's going to happen because it's already happened.

I know what the inside looks like. I've seen 'Anatomy' courses taken OUT of medical schools to increase the 'spoils'. You just don't seem to get it. Public is force. The type of people who are attracted to Public institutions have no interest in, or no experience in, actually 'serving' the community. They couldn't give two flying f*cks. They live in a world of box ticking and spreadsheet with no connection AT ALL with providing a service. And why the f*ck would they? Their money comes in through income tax and other forceful means. At least with a free market there's direct feed-back on quality. In a rent-seeking market there's only boxes that need to be ticked. And as anyone can tell you, anyone who's stomached being around such bureaucrats, box ticking in a rent-seeking Public institution results in death by healthcare coming in at #3 likelihood reason to die. If Americans actually watched what they at, it's be #2 or possibly #1.

So, don't worry, we're going to get "Public" healthcare and it'll be as safe as a Public Housing Slum and as useless as a Public "High" school degree. I think you're going to be in for shock when the 'medical officer' treating you is functionally illiterate. This IS going to happen. And just wait for the 'Mandates' and "Public Healthcare Unions". Ha!

You'll see.


I WANT people to have affordable high quality healthcare. This is ONLY possible through free-markets. True free markets. Which we will never see in our lifetimes, or at least not for many decades to come. Not until or unless the Fed collapses and Income Tax amendment is repealed. As I said, you will see.
 
No, progressivism is not about 'equality' it's the idea that advances in science and technology lead to economic development and together with top-down social re-organization will improve the human condition. The idea was based on the notion Europe had 'Progressed' past much of the rest of the world and it was up to them 'Europeans' (and Americans) to help the poor backwards unwashed masses in the rest of the world achieve the same level of "Progress" as they had - even if it meant a bit of force was required to get the job done (see: GW Bush Jr., Obama, Clinton, etc... and American Exceptionalism).

While it is true that science and technology change society - it's not always for the better. See: Nuclear Bombing of Japan. See: Gunning down of Colonies. See: Freedom Fries and Drones above Iraq. See: NSA

The fundamental problem with Progressives is their willingness to use force to so-called 'help' society. And the irony is, it's not 'Science' that makes a society progressive - it's the free ability to trade. Which requires sound money, law and private property. The USSR had very good scientists. It certainly did NOT result in a progressive society. AND, the War we're fighting against Terror in the ME, THAT is Progressivism. It's the idea that we have the right to go into the 'backwards' middle east with there superstition non-sense and replace it with our "Progressive" culture of science, technology and of course our own superstition: Democracy. Which is interesting given the founding fathers had very little to no faith in democracy. Which is why the general public was only allowed to vote for State representative and the House. All other political 'servants' were chosen for them. Which, considering the federal government was so small, was fine. Ever wonder how this tiny little social institution called the Federal Government grew to into the massive institution it is today? It's ability to initiate force against innocent people. Example: Forcing people to buy ObamaCare and fining them if they don't.

Well that is quite some spin you are putting on it. But it shouldn’t be unexpected. This is what you always do Michael. Reality doesn’t comport with your notions so you are forced to fudge the truth.

“Progressivism is a broad political philosophy based on the Idea of Progress, which asserts that advances in science, technology, economic development, and social organization can improve the human condition. Progressivism became highly significant during the Age of Enlightenment in Europe, out of the belief that Europe was demonstrating that societies could progress in civility from barbaric conditions to civilization through strengthening the basis of empirical knowledge as the foundation of society.[1] Figures of the Enlightenment believed that progress had universal application to all societies and that these ideas would spread across the world from Europe.”[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

And if the founding fathers were against democracy, they would have created a monarchy. They didn’t. Instead they created a representative democracy, the same representative democracy which became the foundation of our current government. Our founding fathers broke the mold and created a new kind of government. It wasn’t perfect. But they realized that and created a process for change so that it could evolve to become a more perfect union.
 
Obama Bans Reducing Number of Employees to Avoid Obamacare

So Obama has altered Obamacare again without legislative authority. Once again he has pushed one of the many onerous mandates in the ACA past an upcoming election. But this time it comes with a twist! While firms with fewer than 100 employees now need not comply with the law as written for a while longer, should the number of employees employed by some company now drop below the magic number, the firm must certify that they did not do so to avoid Obamacare:

And the fine print of the latest announcement from the Administration is worse than the terrible headlines. This rule includes a provision that says you have to have the right motives for having a certain number of employees to be in compliance with Obamacare. Bear with me, that’s right: You must certify to the IRS – under the threat of perjury – that the reasons for your employee head count have nothing to do with your opposition to or avoidance of Obamacare. This president doesn’t just selectively enforce the law as he sees fit; now he is actually inventing new crimes. It’s jaw-dropping that if you fall below 100 employees, the burden will be on you to prove that you meant no disrespect to Obamacare. I can’t wait to see the video of the first Democrat who tries to defend this new threat of prosecution within Obamacare. In fact, look for the White House to fix this and somehow drop this provision altogether. It’s completely indefensible.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ates-new-ways-to-prosecute-american-business/
 
So Obama has altered Obamacare again without legislative authority. Once again he has pushed one of the many onerous mandates in the ACA past an upcoming election. But this time it comes with a twist! While firms with fewer than 100 employees now need not comply with the law as written for a while longer, should the number of employees employed by some company now drop below the magic number, the firm must certify that they did not do so to avoid Obamacare:

Except for the fact that President Obama has not altered Obamacare...one of them damn minor details again. What President Obama has done is delay enforcement of certain provisions of Obamacare. That is different, very different, from changing the law as you, Fox News, and other right wingers are claiming.

As for the rest of your allegations, do you have proof from a credible source? Quoting partisan sources which are well known for their specious reporting is not convincing.
 
joepistole

Another decietful paid ad, how is that new? ) It's yet another "FOOL THE FOOL" ad paid for by the Koch brothers.

And it's working...on the fools.

Grumpy:cool:
 
joepistole



And it's working...on the fools.

Grumpy:cool:

I never had a particularly strong impression of the scale of ignorance in the US until probably the Dubbya years. If I'm not mistaken there was a time when Limbaugh was about the only crank out there. 10-20 years maybe? How and why it accelerated is a puzzle to me. It may be I just never encountered it in my own circle of experience except for a few rare cases of nuts here and there. I think what I'm saying is that I either led a sheltered life or this really did take off around the time of 9/11. Who knows. But now that there are 50-100 million people addicted to rant, it's hard to say how it will collapse on itself. At some point their kids will be coming home with facts and data in their textbooks which one might hope would be enough to knock the wind out of their sails. I hate to think of what they might turn to next though.
 
Another decietful paid ad, how is that new? ) It's yet another "FOOL THE FOOL" ad paid for by the Koch brothers.
I think we may need to amend Godwin's law to include the Koch brothers. It's as if you think that all you have to do is invoke the name of the Koch brothers to instantly win any argument. Meanwhile Americans who previously bought insurance on the individual market are seeing for themselves that if they actually need to use their insurance and would prefer to see the doctor of their choice rather than whatever hack happens to be in their Obamacare approved network, they're screwed. Soon the benefits of Obamacare will also affect those who purchase their insurance through their employer. Then the shit will really hit the fan.
 
Aqueous Id

A goodly portion of the current stupidity in the Republican party is pure racism dressed up in idiotic political maneuvering and speech. About a third of the Republican party are racists, pure and simple. But while it is currently politically viable to appear stupid(how else do you explain Louie Gohmert or Michelle Bachmann?)it is not viable to be openly racist. So much of the stupidity is code for "I'm a racist just like you, look I belief all the stupid stuff you do too." They just can't stand the fact that their candidates got beaten like a bass drum at a parade by a black man...TWICE.

Roughly another third are religiously besotted, which is another prejudiced ism, one not of racism but of worldview. If you don't reject reality in favor of their opinions on reality, you are "other" and "lesser". Much of the stupidity has it's genesis here, which is used to give the racists and xenophobes "legitimacy" and cover. Their "Religious Freedom" is the "right" to be a bigot and to run the government accordingly. The "right" to be prejudiced and discriminatory, imposing their religious opinion by force of law.

The rest are corporatists(we used to call them other names, which themselves are no longer PC). They serve the interests of wealth and those who have it. Unfortunately roughly a third of the Democratic party are also corporatists, hence our current financial inequality problem.

Together these people have done more damage to the majority of American citizens than anything else. The rich have tripled their take while everyone else hasn't had a raise in three decades. 911 killed almost 3000 people, but the refusal of 31 states to expand Medicaid kills that many every month due to lack of affordable healthcare. So who's the real killers? The Greedy Bastards, that's who.

Grumpy:cool:
 
Back
Top