queencitybuckeye;1508497 wrote:Yes, they should. In the meantime, the Republicans should acknowledge that they lost, take their beating, and STFU about it until the next election.

They've moved the needle of public opinion and are getting votes on record. That's actually key to the 2014 elections because there are plenty in the House and Senate who could otherwise wipe their hands and say they didn't vote for it in 2009.

gut;1508501 wrote:They've moved the needle of public opinion and are getting votes on record. That's actually key to the 2014 elections because there are plenty in the House and Senate who could otherwise wipe their hands and say they didn't vote for it in 2009.

We get it, they don't like it. I don't either, but it passed. Personally, it didn't take tens of votes on the same thing for me to get it. Perhaps they could carve out a little time from the campaign to actually govern.

queencitybuckeye;1508023 wrote:Damn, what you're saying is we could eliminate poverty by end of business today!

Not sure what's worse, that you believe such drivel, or that you don't and troll the board with this nonsense.

Indeed we could come pretty close and it wouldn't be all that difficult. All we'd need to do is eliminate the welfare state and instill an employer of last resort program. Everybody would have the dignity of work like Mitt Romney wanted and we wouldn't provide any handouts for nothing. There's lots of work to be done but a lot of it is the type that wouldn't generate a sufficient return for a capitalist. The United States however, engaging in pure consumption spending, can generate lots of wealth for the private sector. Now you have a buffer stock of employed labor at the wage floor that controls inflation rather than an army of unemployed labor wallowing away on the welfare state unable to get jobs in the private sector because well run firms are wary of hiring the unemployed.

jmog;1508215 wrote:Boat, you have now sunk to a level that is despicable.

You were very logical and fun to debate with during the elections.

You have been sometimes histerical since them but still respectable.

These posts regarding the HSA and how it will affect families with children that have debilitating diseases is downright despicable. You have lost my respect.

1. You didn't have much evident respect for me as you often use pejoratives and insults that hUrt My feelz.

2. I'm still as fun or not fun to debate with as always. It is in your head. My guess is you probably feel this way because you've been pwned so hard several times since the election. i.e. When you tried to pwn me by quoting the Preamble when I was talking about the Taxing and Spending Clause...Your recent fail with regard to the employment-population-ratio...Your not understanding that the economist you cited was from the Austrian school of economics and told me I should recant my calling him an Austrian cus he was Swedish lol....Pointing out the multitude of times you've appealed to your own authority and told us all that you're a scientist and refuse to admit that you did imply you were smarter and better than most of those derpy civil engineers who do climate research....etc. etc. etc.

3. My posts with regard to the government spending in the tax code that primarily benefits high earners known as Flexible Spending Accounts can not be read as "despicable" on any reasonable standard. I directed no ill will nor animosity towards Manhattan Buckeye's friend. As I said very clearly in the next post of mine that you quote, I sympathize with him.

I think it is erroneous, sad, and destructive that we have a bunch of derps in the democratic party like Max Baucus that were so worried about digital numbers in securities accounts at the Federal Reserve that they thought it was necessary to cut government spending in the Tax Code for High Earners in the Form of Flexible Spending Accounts...in order to provide Government Spending in the Tax Code to People who buy individual health insurance and don't make a lot of money.

The right thing to do is to subsidize the healthcare needs of rich, poor, sick and healthy alike. A simple answer would be just to mail MB's friend a Medicare card.

My criticism was all directed toward Manhattan Buckeye and his myopia.

jmog;1508217 wrote:He never one time said that there aren't others worse off than his friend. He was relaying how the ACA rules will negatively affect his friend. Nothing more, nothing less.

You jumped all over him with big time assumptions that he never said or implied and quite frankly looked like an asshole.

I never levied any insults at MB. He called me an asshole because I guessed, correctly, about or around how well MB's friend did financially and then pointed out that Max Baucus and Co. intentionally went after the Flexible Spending Account to "Save Money" so they could provide those same types of subsidies to teh P00rz instead.

Was it really that hard to guess his friend did pretty well when he posts stuff like this all the time? I don't know why it erked him so much.

Manhattan Buckeye;1493258 wrote:^^^

I know about Mickey D's because we were members of the same Club with the guy that ran SE Asia out of Sing. Interesting folks. Actually knew his wife more than him since she was always at the gym and he was always traveling and barely was around. Have to hand it to an older guy (my guess he is 60+) that still has the energy to perform at a high level. I don't own any MCD stock, and probably haven't been there more than twice a year in ages, but from a corporate standpoint it seems to be pretty well run.

Manhattan Buckeye;1480645 wrote:
Back to the point, I know a LOT of people in Texas, and many UT and aTm grads and business people in Dallas and Houston. I have yet to hear one positive thing about JM. Most of it is more sympathetic, he isn't just immature for a 19 year old, he's immature for a 14 year old.

Manhattan Buckeye;1481253 wrote:That's your opinion, but I'm invited to the aTm/Vandy game this year by a big donor...he ain't happy right now.

And if you think I'm full of #&%^ you can ask a mod where I'm posting from.

Pretty much 95% of the college football world realizes this kid has a lot of growing up to do, and is no where near NFL ready.

^^And that's just a small sampling. I don't personally see why he got so upset that I believe him when he gets trolled so much by dudes on the other boards.

And then, I didn't "make assumptions" in my reply. Manhattan Buckeye has a well established posting history containing callousness toward teh p00rz and people who benefit greatly from the type of government subsidies that benefited his friend. He would be first in line to cut medicaid, the obamacare subsidies, etc. that would harm a lower to middle income person with a child with Rett's syndrome.

Manhattan Buckeye;1493216 wrote: No one should be guaranteed a living....a lot of European countries have tried this...all it leads to is massive unemployment and sucking off of the government (read: taxpayer or bondholders) teat.

The people that benefit from Obummercare...he's said before....they don't need comprehensive health plans with subsidies...all they need is high-deductible health insurance. A 40 year old Hungy Howie's Employee doesn't need/deserve subsidized individual health insurance...but he is up in arms about the loss of subsidized health expenditures for primarily high-earning americans in the form of FSAs???

It's a shame we live in a deficit scold world and we don't simply provide them to both but it clearly never occurred to MB that the subsidies that he derides in Obamacare are tax expenditures/government spending just like FSA's.

If I came on here and told a story about how Obummercare was going to help a 40 year old Hungry Howie's employee buy health insurance he'd probably tell me that "He's not entitled to a living" etc. etc.

gut;1508501 wrote:They've moved the needle of public opinion and are getting votes on record. That's actually key to the 2014 elections because there are plenty in the House and Senate who could otherwise wipe their hands and say they didn't vote for it in 2009.

Whatever way they've moved the needle is pointless because it's all been based on demagoguery. Here's a funny story about Kynect....the Kentucky Health Exchange being promoted at the Kentucky State fair and your typical Republican constituent saying "This Beats Obamacare I hope".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/22/kentucky-obamacare_n_3801054.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003&ir=Business

LOL!!!

It won't be long before folks will be saying "get your government hands off my obamacare" just like Republicans now say that about Medicare...the largest socialist program in the world.

QuakerOats;1508478 wrote:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304526204579097443230322758.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion

"Enacted with zero Republican votes, ObamaCare is the solely owned creation of the Democrats' belief in their own limitless powers to fashion goodness out of legislated entitlements. Sometimes social experiments go wrong. In the end, the only one who supported Frankenstein was Dr. Frankenstein. The Democrats in 2014 should by all means be asked relentlessly to defend their monster."

Thanks for handing democrats HeritageCare!

jmog;1508228 wrote:I notice you cherry picked the part you wanted.

You mysteriously forgot to mention that 29% support Obamacare and 22% support ACA. So basically less than 1/3 of Americans support this travesty of a law.

Didn't mean it to be cherry picking. Your supposed counter-point just proves the point I was trying to make. different amounts of people support the same thing by different name.

Nobody knows what the law is. Of course, conservative demagoguery has played a role.

Talk to me again when people are buying health insurance and are the beneficiaries of government spending in the tax code that helps them buy it.

It will be popular just like FSA's were popular with high earners who could plug away a lot of money into them.

The perspective of MIT economist Johnathan Gruber (who crafted Romneycare...you know that guy who the Republicans nominated for President) on Obamacare/Romneycare part deux/HeritageCare

The number of people covered by employer-based health-care plans is dropping by a percentage point a year. The system is falling apart. So you put in a new safety net. That means a few more people are going to come in. If you’re not willing to risk making some things worse, you’re never going to make anything better. My estimate is that 80 percent of the people are not going to feel any change at all, and that 17 percent or so are going to find that things are better, and that about two or three percent will be worse off, and those are the people who benefit from the discriminatory nature of health-insurance at the present time. If health-insurance companies can’t discriminate any more, those people will have to pay a little more. When we decided that people couldn’t discriminate in what they paid black people or women any more, people had to pay more because employers couldn’t discriminate in what they paid black people and women. Was that a bad thing?

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/A_Brief_Interlude_With_Expert_Opinion

Belly35;1508182 wrote:The reason money goes into (rich) people account (I’m not rich but I good) is because many of us work, take risk, invest, take responsibilities for the care, protection and provide the welfare of our family. In doing so we prosper an by being a responsible, prosperous citizen we have a bank account.


Really! an in what time frame would those who haven't understood the simple aspect of work, providing, saving, investing and responsibilities be back to square one with their hand out for more of what they haven't earned.


Tax more Really ... How about cleaning the record of goverment fraud, social welfare corruption, meaningless federal programs and big goverment operation cost. Put free enterprises back to business, get goverment out of the private sector and let risk takers create jobs for those who want to work, prosper and open bank accounts.

How is it that we have gone from rewarding achievement to punishing achievers

I'm not talking about hand outs. Indeed I've advocated eliminating the welfare state previously on here. And I'm not talking about taxing more. Matter of fact, under current conditions and for the foreseeable future we should be cutting taxes. With an employer of last resort everyone has to be an achiever and with budgeting based on the real effects on our economy rather than budgeting like a currency user we could throw out much of the talk about punishing teh achIev3rs. Hope this helps.

You are right Boat. Your comments were not insensitive at all. You were perfectly right in laughing at the families problems with a sick kid.

Means on another note, keep thinking you have "pwned" someone, it makes you look even more pompous.

BoatShoes;1508776 wrote:[IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com the /media/ BU3OUSdCMAAjRox.jpg[/IMG]

If my childre n want to be on my insurance plan until 26. I will probably disown them unless they are in Med or law school.

jmog;1508859 wrote:You are right Boat. Your comments were not insensitive at all. You were perfectly right in laughing at the families problems with a sick kid.

Means on another note, keep thinking you have "pwned" someone, it makes you look even more pompous.

Guy...I wasn't laughing at families with sick children. My derision was intended solely for Manhattan Buckeye and his oblivion, who called me an asshole. But believe what you want lol.

pmoney25;1508871 wrote:If my childre n want to be on my insurance plan until 26. I will probably disown them unless they are in Med or law school.

Father of the year! : thumbup:

Good thing now they can buy subsidized individual insurance if their employer doesn't offer it. : thumbup:

BoatShoes;1508970 wrote:Father of the year! : thumbup:

Good thing now they can buy subsidized individual insurance if their employer doesn't offer it. : thumbup:

I'm not too concerned, my kids won't be failures.

26 year olds aren't kids. If they are let's change a few things.

How about no one can vote, drive a car, serve in the military, or drink until they're 26 for starters?

No one under the age of 26 should be able to hold down a job, get married, or have children without written permission from their parents.

No one under the age of 26 should be permitted to work any job that requires them to work more than 32 hours per week.

I can think of a few more.

The 26 year old clause is just one of the more absurd features of Obamacare and why the law is doomed to ultimate failure.

pmoney25;1508984 wrote:I'm not too concerned, my kids won't be Democrats.

Fixed.

[video]http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/obamacare-cold-open/n41321[/video]

The Obamacare exchanges open tomorrow whether there is a shutdown or not some how.

Who is excited?

BoatShoes;1508970 wrote:Good thing now they can buy subsidized individual insurance if their employer doesn't offer it. : thumbup:

They could already buy insurance, IF THEY WANTED IT, at 1/3 the price of the new exchange prices, and without the THREAT OF GOVERNMENT FORCE AND PENALTY!


Stop spreading lies around here; we don't care if you are being compensated to be a mouthpiece for these marxists.

http://nypost.com/2013/09/30/experts-fear-obamacare-rate-spiral/


Higher prices / more limited access to care.


Liberalism ALWAYS genertates the exact opposite of its stated intent.


Change we can believe in.

Last day before the end of the world.

On the President's schedule tomorrow is a 12PM photo-op with a group of people that will be benefiting from the start of Obamacare tomorrow.

He is going to be rubbing it in big time you can bet that it couldn't be stopped.