As a corollary to the point above, consider GEICO, one of Warren Buffet's most successful ventures in insurance. They only cover people seeking auto insurance that qualify under certain conditions. They offered a relatively cheap product (I was a customer for 5 years) because they keep costs down by not insuring high risk individuals. If Obamacare applied to the auto insurance industry, GEICO would be forced to insure even the most risky drivers, driving (no pun intended) costs up for everyone.

Again, do you not understand the concept of insurance?

ptown_trojans_1;1483305 wrote:Again, that is the high level, top down picture, when in reality, each agency is very different and has various different program accounts. You have to read into each of the accounts to understand what's impacted.

But, it is simple to just throw out the big numbers without any thought.

Spoken like a true public employee. :laugh:

Yes, it is simple...because while you can obfuscate with all the "complex agencies" claptrap to your hearts content, the "top down" number is what the taxpayers are on the hook for at the end of the day.

Riddle me this...now much more additional money does the government need on top of $147 billion to avoid all these "cuts?"

Manhattan Buckeye;1483436 wrote:Did you read the link provided?:

[LEFT]"That's because these people live in states where insurers were allowed to sell bare-bones plans and exclude the sick, which has kept costs down. Under Obamacare, insurers must offer a package of essential benefits -- including maternity, mental health and medications -- and must cover all who apply. But more comprehensive coverage may lead to more expensive insurance plans."

-what that means, is that the catastrophic coverage premium just increased by some margin. An insurer can no longer just insure the young and insure just catastrophic. It conditions the market. I have no idea why you don't understand this concept. It reduces the market, it causes insurers to provide a product it doesn't want to provide, and to the extent they continue to operate it will raise costs for all.

What part of this don't you understand?[/LEFT]

It depends on the state. What you ignore is that several states already have some kind of modified medical underwriting wherein the ratios of healthy people/sick people, young/old people are heavily regulated and/or rating on such characteristics is barred completely. So in Vermont for example there's already an age band rating of 2:1 whereas Obamacare makes it 3:1 nationwide. Premiums for catastrophic coverage in Vermont should drop on that standard.

So I mean are you upset about the infringement on medical underwriting underming the fundamental liberties of insurance companies? If so, those days have been long gone under state regulations of insurance companies. Obamacare just makes it uniform across the states (which you would've had to do for the conservative goal of "health insurance being sold across state lines" to realistically come to fruition). It's not like Obamacare has any more radical of a "transfer of wealth" from the young to the old/sick than what was happening in a lot of states.

But even if we accept your point w/ regard to a state wherein premiums for catastrophic coverage are going to go up, we're talking about $300-$400 increase in premiums for a year in California for example for catastrophic coverage. That is not bad for California and hardly some horrific transfer of wealth like you're acting it is.

Like I said, and your point does not change:

Myths about redistribution from the young and healthy to the old and sick are greatly exaggerated.

There was already an element of this in the state-based health insurance regimes and the effects on premiums for catastrophic coverage will depend on what was going on each state prior to the ACA. I doubt you were rambling on about the horrific transfer of wealth to the old that was caused by New York's community rating regime.

Manhattan Buckeye;1483442 wrote:As a corollary to the point above, consider GEICO, one of Warren Buffet's most successful ventures in insurance. They only cover people seeking auto insurance that qualify under certain conditions. They offered a relatively cheap product (I was a customer for 5 years) because they keep costs down by not insuring high risk individuals. If Obamacare applied to the auto insurance industry, GEICO would be forced to insure even the most risky drivers, driving (no pun intended) costs up for everyone.

Again, do you not understand the concept of insurance?

Health Insurance in the States didn't operate on pure individual medical underwriting standards before the ACA. And, where it did it was unopopular. People didn't like being turned away from being insured and being considred "uninsurable" because of things as arbitrary as acne, being 30lbs overweight or for old sports injuries, arthritis, etc. "Pre-existing conditions" as Obama would say. And, that is part why the concept of "selling across state lines" had to go through these health insurance market places because otherwise you'd just have regulatory shopping.

Some of the Obamacare plans are more like pre-paid maintenance plans than insurance. Nevertheless, the catastrophic coverage insurance option remains and even in states where premiums will rise they won't be that much and it won't constitute some kind of egregious wealth transfer above and beyond the transfer of wealth that was going on in many states.

fish82;1483192 wrote:Dude.

If the federal government can't get by with $147 billion more than you spent last year, I don't know what to tell ya.

These "cuts" speak more to you people's ineptitude than anything else, TBH.

The way to look at it is $147 billion that's not going to be spent into the private sector when the economy doesn't have enough spending as is.

BoatShoes;1483478 wrote:The way to look at it is $147 billion that's not going to be spent into the private sector when the economy doesn't have enough spending as is.

The way to look at is government should never be allowed to run a deficit because a deficit represents excess spending by the most inefficient player in the economy. Starve government, and allow the private sector to work its magic by allocating resources efficiently.

Obama wants to deepen the Gulf ports....in Charleston and Savannah.

I sat with insurers and brokers yesterday; the horrific premium increases they have delivered over the last several weeks is mind-boggling, all due essentially to obamaKare. The stunting of growth that this disastrous legislation is having is indeed substantial. When you force community rating onto insurers, you have eliminated risk-based 'insurance', and replaced it with a marxist redistribution of resources. And that is just one of the many egregious tenets of this ridiculous law. Premiums will be through the roof, tens of millions will remain uninsured, quality of care will diminish, young people will get royally screwed, government will get bigger, and the quality of life in the USA will further deteriorate .............. all 100% courtesy of the democrats. Congrat's!


Change we can believe in ....

TedSheckler;1483539 wrote:Obama wants to deepen the Gulf ports....in Charleston and Savannah.

Nothing new. Corps of Engineers has been looking at that for nearly 2 years.

fish82;1483445 wrote:Spoken like a true public employee. :laugh:

Yes, it is simple...because while you can obfuscate with all the "complex agencies" claptrap to your hearts content, the "top down" number is what the taxpayers are on the hook for at the end of the day.

Riddle me this...now much more additional money does the government need on top of $147 billion to avoid all these "cuts?"

I'm a contractor, not a blue badge.
And, sorry, until you actually understand how the budget process works, and how the cuts impact each agency, it is hard to speak to the merits of sequestration. Sure, the $147 is a big number, but do the work and figure out where that number comes from. Then, look at what is saved from the cuts, and what is not.

And, I am for more cuts, like most on here, but I want them smartly, not just willy-nilly on all accounts.

QuakerOats;1483537 wrote:The way to look at is government should never be allowed to run a deficit because a deficit represents excess spending by the most inefficient player in the economy. Starve government, and allow the private sector to work its magic by allocating resources efficiently.

Did you take Macro econ? Sometimes, even in good times, a deficit is alright.
And, sometimes, left to its own devices, the private sector wrecks havoc. (Panics 1873, 1893, 1929, 1979, and 2007).
The magical hand does have its limits. Macro economic theory states that.

ptown_trojans_1;1483649 wrote: The magical hand does have its limits. Macro economic theory states that.

True, but govt hasn't proven to be a solution. And that is unsurprising - why would a bunch of lawyers be able to outsmart the collective market?

And let's make a distinction between deficits and stimulus - the latter which in most cases isn't really effective. Monetary and regulatory policy is where it's at, probably because it is neither horribly reactive nor temporary.

This is what happens when Social Justice gets moved to the head of the class - http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/08/obama-administration-using-housing-department-to-compel-diversity-in/

Tell me, Obamabots, which section, paragraph or clause of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or Amendments does this gross over-reach pertain?

ptown_trojans_1;1483649 wrote: Did you take Macro econ? Sometimes, even in good times, a deficit is alright.
And, sometimes, left to its own devices, the private sector wrecks havoc. (Panics 1873, 1893, 1929, 1979, and 2007).
The magical hand does have its limits. Macro economic theory states that.

Yes.

Free markets always correct, but generally speaking the majority of the distortions, in the first place, have been caused by government intervention into free markets.

Because of government overreach - via excessive taxation and regulation - private companies now spend ridiculous amounts of time and resources dealing with the overreach, or figuring out how to manage through it, instead of doing what they should be doing: competing with their real competitors in the global marketplace. The cost of having to deal with this overreach is enormous, not just in dollars wasted, but in lost job opportunities, stunted growth, and lack of innovation.

We can do sooooooooo much better, but not until we get rid of the marxists in the WH and the regulatory agencies who are hell bent on ruining our capitalist economy.

ptown_trojans_1;1483640 wrote:Nothing new. Corps of Engineers has been looking at that for nearly 2 years.

Maybe you need to really think about Ted's post.

QuakerOats;1483950 wrote:Maybe you need to really think about Ted's post.

Yeah, deepen them so they can handle supertankers from the Panama Canal.
I see the gaffe though, but moving past that he is right, we are deepening the ports.

It isn't a gaffe, if it was George W. Bush this would be all over Huffington Post, MSNBC and Jon Stewart.

Without his teleprompter he is no better than W (who was no genius speaking offhand). How can any idiot talk like this? And Savannah isn't even really a port.

At what point will sycophants agree that Obama isn't just underwhelming, he actually might be completely incompetent.

Manhattan Buckeye;1484006 wrote: At what point will sycophants agree that Obama isn't just underwhelming, he actually might be completely incompetent.

I think his combination of arrogance, ignorance and disinterest is why he IS incompetent. Because he certainly is intelligent. Or perhaps it's simply that he's an uncompromising politic more interested in crushing opposition than leading.

IMO you get similar results with Obama as Bush because in the latter case, he's unduly manipulated or influenced by career insiders whereas Obama is simply happy to defer to them.

Why is he intelligent? He has never released his college transcripts or boards. I don't plan on ever running for public office but if I did my HS, College, Law School, LSAT, and MBE score would be available to the public......the public should know the public servants they are supporting. We know he went to Harvard Law School and served as Editor in Chief of the HLS Review, but that doesn't mean anything. The further you get into higher education, the further you get away from actual results.

QuakerOats;1483947 wrote:Yes.

Free markets always correct, but generally speaking the majority of the distortions, in the first place, have been caused by government intervention into free markets.

Because of government overreach - via excessive taxation and regulation - private companies now spend ridiculous amounts of time and resources dealing with the overreach, or figuring out how to manage through it, instead of doing what they should be doing: competing with their real competitors in the global marketplace. The cost of having to deal with this overreach is enormous, not just in dollars wasted, but in lost job opportunities, stunted growth, and lack of innovation.

We can do sooooooooo much better, but not until we get rid of the marxists in the WH and the regulatory agencies who are hell bent on ruining our capitalist economy.

The supply side always matters but capitalism runs on sales. Tea Partiers who run department stores aren't laying people off if people are storming the doors under our current tax and regulatory environment. The restaurant isn't laying people off if all the tables are full and there's a wait. Engineering firms aren't laying people off if the orders are rolling in.

And, in case you didn't notice, the U.S. doesn't have a free market. We've got a currency monopolist. The neoclassical perfectly competitive market model is a myth that doesn't reflect the world we live in. So unless you're gonna go full on Ron Paul and demand we get rid of the central bank and the monopolization of dollar denominated banknotes you can send talks about markets perfectly clearing out the window.

Manhattan Buckeye;1484067 wrote:Why is he intelligent? He has never released his college transcripts or boards. I don't plan on ever running for public office but if I did my HS, College, Law School, LSAT, and MBE score would be available to the public......the public should know the public servants they are supporting. We know he went to Harvard Law School and served as Editor in Chief of the HLS Review, but that doesn't mean anything. The further you get into higher education, the further you get away from actual results.

I saw you goin off about Obama and the gaffe and I knew you were going to make a post about his law school transcripts, etc. :laugh: Weird obsession IMHO. Just jump right into it and tell us how you think he got everything handed to him and he's nothing but an Affirmative Action prez.

Obsessed as to qualifications? Missed that during the W years. Here is a question for you BS, why are you so up in his jock? The US economy has stunk monkeys for his entire term with no real indication that there is a turnaround. What is it about him that make you support him, and make you out to be a fool? I don't get it. You seem like Tina Turner getting another slap from Ike.

Manhattan Buckeye;1484067 wrote:Why is he intelligent?

Because he had to be in order to become editor of the Harvard Law Review, or get a job teaching at a prestigious law school.

But, yeah, he's pretty stupid/ignorant about many non-law related issues. And while he may know the law, he doesn't appear to have much respect for it.

Law reviews aren't just about grades, every major law review has a "write in" and many have an affirmative action component - including my own. Once you are on law review you are elected to your position.

I don't see why it is so difficult for him not to release his transcripts. Why not? If I apply for a job at McDonald's they ask for mine.

As for the transcripts, I think these two theories rank best:
1) He applied as a foreign student, or something along those lines, to improve his chances. And if it was remotely defensible, who wouldn't?
2) He may have taken some electives that would raise eyebrows.

I doubt his grades are anything less than average. It's conceivable his LSAT might have been poor, which especially combined with #1 above would make him a real fraud.

Manhattan Buckeye;1484080 wrote:Law reviews aren't just about grades, every major law review has a "write in" and many have an affirmative action component - including my own. Once you are on law review you are elected to your position.

You got me there. But even if Univ. of Chicago was looking to hire a minority professor, they would have had virtually their pick of very elite and qualified minorities.