ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[Phatscotty]

Oh, so corporate goodwill is the guarantee then.

'k - thanks for the clarification

You seem to have misunderstood. That's ok with me.

Stalin, the point I was trying to make is that the risk of taking in more sick people would be offset by the number of healthy people being added to the system. That's how I understood things, anyway.

yeah but, our birth-rate is in decline at the moment. and with almost 50% of children being diagnosed with some kind of ADD, I think it's more like the opposite

[InkL0sed]

Oh, so corporate goodwill is the guarantee then.

'k - thanks for the clarification

You seem to have misunderstood. That's ok with me.

girlfriend, you so sassy!

So, anyway, what is the law or regulation that would prevent one of the insurance mega-corporations who financed Obama's campaign from raising or sustaining rates? Since I seem to be misunderstanding, a simple link will do. THX!

Competition.

[saxitoxin]

Oh, so corporate goodwill is the guarantee then.

'k - thanks for the clarification

You seem to have misunderstood. That's ok with me.

girlfriend, you so sassy!

So, anyway, what is the law or regulation that would prevent one of the insurance mega-corporations who financed Obama's campaign from raising or sustaining rates? Since I seem to be misunderstanding, a simple link will do. THX!

Competition.

LOL, of course! The thing that keeps gas prices low.

Well it's good Obama trusts market forces to keep Americans from getting ass-raped by the health insurance mega-corporations who financed his campaign; trusts them so much, in fact, he doesn't feel the need for any regulation of prices at all as he's using police power to increase their customer base by 8%.

Why does the US need the FDA for that matter? Rely on competition! No regulation needed. FTC? Nah - competition! NTSB? Cut that red tape - we have competition! FAA? Airlines that crash a lot will just eventually go out of business - market forces will correct. Cut that regulation and bring back competition!

Hilarious!

There are no effective cost containment or prevention measures in the bill.

The bill, if enacted, doesn’t take effect until after the presidential elections in 2013, mostly to let the drug and health insurance industries adjust, though they can scarcely believe their good fortune at being delivered all those profitable customers paid for by taxpayers with scarcely any price restraints.

http://www.nader.org/index.php?/archive ... -Care.html

[InkL0sed]

Well, because Nader said it, it must be true.

In any case, I'm just presenting the logic; you're just dismissing it and not really presenting an alternative.

[Aradhus]

Democrat-Republican Nightmare Scenario / Saxi Dream Scenario: What if the court rules the rest of the law can stand absent this one provision? This would be a nightmare scenario for Obama, the Democrats, Republicans and the mega-corporations. It would mean Americans would no longer be encumbered by restrictions on pre-existing conditions, the mega-corporations would be out billions upon billions of dollars without the revenue bonanza of an 8% increase in customer base they and Obama had counted upon.

That sounds nice, but wouldn't that cause health care companies to raise their rates? I thought the idea was to make it more affordable, not less so.

What protections in the legislation, as it was passed, exist to keep that from happening anyway?

Well, the idea is that rates would lower because everybody would have healthcare. The companies could offset the fact that they have to keep and accept sick and old people with the new pool of young, healthy people getting insurance.

Oh, so corporate goodwill is the guarantee then.

'k - thanks for the clarification

Were you in favour of the public option?

I doubt the supreme court will side with the federal judge. It would be fascinating if they did, though.

[saxitoxin]

Well, because Nader said it, it must be true.

Well, because InkL0sed said it, it must be true.

In any case, I'm just presenting the logic; you're just dismissing it and not really presenting an alternative.

In any case, Nader is just presenting the logic; you're just dismissing it and not really presenting an alternative.

Were you in favour of the public option?

I'm in favour of the temporary state monopoly of all industries through a socialist republic based on people's power as a transitional phase to the dismantling of the vampire-state and its replacement with a federal system of self-governing, worker's communes in which industry is collectively owned through non-coercive, democratically governed cooperatives.

I doubt the supreme court will side with the federal judge. It would be fascinating if they did, though.

Will it ever get to the Supreme Court? Obama has jumped on GOP command since the election and the Democrat wing of the Institutional Democrat-Republican Party still controls the House for another month. Even his sycophantic, slack-jawed, drooling supporters are calling Obama "a punchline" (Maddow) and "a disgrace" (Olbermann). It will get upheld in an appellate session of the Circuit Court. Because of the political sensitivity of it, Judge Traxler will convene the Fourth Circuit into an en banc sitting and all 15 judges will hear it.

At this point a grand compromise will be announced in a spirit of "bipartisanship" and Attorney-General Heinrich Holder's Department of Oppression will be ordered to stop the appeals and spend more time on trying to execute Julian Assange. The Supreme Court will never get a whiff of it. Even if they decide to continue an appeal, the Supreme Court won't want to get in the middle of it because it's too partisan. The statistics of SCOTUS issuing a writ of certiorari after a circuit court has sat en banc drops to some ridiculously tiny level.

[Aradhus]

A simple no would've sufficed.

[InkL0sed]

Well, because Nader said it, it must be true.

Well, because InkL0sed said it, it must be true.

In any case, I'm just presenting the logic; you're just dismissing it and not really presenting an alternative.

In any case, Nader is just presenting the logic; you're just dismissing it and not really presenting an alternative.

Clever, but not valid. Try again.

[saxitoxin]

A simple no would've sufficed.

Incorrect. This way I cut off the inevitable histrionics, hair-rending protestations and cat-calls at the sky before they start. The best defence is a sound offense.

[saxitoxin]

Well, because Nader said it, it must be true.

Well, because InkL0sed said it, it must be true.

In any case, I'm just presenting the logic; you're just dismissing it and not really presenting an alternative.

In any case, Nader is just presenting the logic; you're just dismissing it and not really presenting an alternative.

Clever, but not valid. Try again.

I don't think you understand. This -

Competition.

- doesn't need a rebuttle.

It's a chuckle and a wave. Sorry, that's just how it is. It's like a kindergartner asking their teacher to debate the existence of Santa Claus. There's just no intellectual motivation for me to reply.

[Aradhus]

I know this will blow your mind, but all I wanted to know was what your position on it was. Internet conversation isn't all about the lulz, pwnage, and moral indignation.

[saxitoxin]

I know this will blow your mind, but all I wanted to know was what your position on it was. Internet conversation isn't all about the lulz, pwnage, and moral indignation.

Are you really still stewing over this?

Perhaps you can demonstrate your frantically and loudly enunciated forensic acumen by letting it go? Sometimes silence can send the best message. Don't you agree? I'm sure you do.

[Phatscotty]

I know this will blow your mind, but all I wanted to know was what your position on it was. Internet conversation isn't all about the lulz, pwnage, and moral indignation.

you coulda fooled me

[Aradhus]

I know this will blow your mind, but all I wanted to know was what your position on it was. Internet conversation isn't all about the lulz, pwnage, and moral indignation.

Are you really still stewing over this?

Perhaps you can demonstrate your frantically and loudly enunciated forensic acumen by letting it go? Sometimes silence can send the best message. Don't you agree? I'm sure you do.

Yeah I'm really stewing, you troll so well.

[saxitoxin]

I know this will blow your mind, but all I wanted to know was what your position on it was. Internet conversation isn't all about the lulz, pwnage, and moral indignation.

Are you really still stewing over this?

Perhaps you can demonstrate your frantically and loudly enunciated forensic acumen by letting it go? Sometimes silence can send the best message. Don't you agree? I'm sure you do.

you troll so well

Internet conversation isn't all about the lulz, pwnage, and moral indignation.

*Le Sigh*

[Aradhus]

Yeah, do you have a point? Your response says nothing about what I think the internet is about for me, only you.

[saxitoxin]

Yeah, do you have a point? Your response says nothing about what I think the internet is about for me, only you.

Chill out. There's no reason to so obsessively stew over this. You've made four posts now to enunciate your enraged fury someone suggested you were angry.

No one here is "out to get" you. Relax. Count to ten. You marginalize yourself when you start ranting like a madman.

[Aradhus]

*Aims* Trolls* *Fails*

*Aims* Trolls* *Fails*

*Aims* Trolls* *Fails*

*Aims* Trolls* *Fails*

one more try?

[InkL0sed]

I don't think you understand. This -

Competition.

- doesn't need a rebuttle.

It's a chuckle and a wave. Sorry, that's just how it is. It's like a kindergartner asking their teacher to debate the existence of Santa Claus. There's just no intellectual motivation for me to reply.

You marginalize yourself when you dismiss simple economic concepts such as competition. I don't pretend that to be the ultimate answer - I'm willing to admit it's not satisfactory if you give a satisfactory reason why it doesn't apply - but dismissing it without even bothering to respond only makes you look silly to anyone with a high school education.

Also, you still don't understand my intention here. I was asking you to explain how the situation could be better without the mandate but the rest of the law. Clearly, prices would rise without the mandate. Now, are you going to explain why prices would rise (despite individuals' alleged ability to choose between insurers) even with the mandate?

[Aradhus]

I know this will blow your mind, but all I wanted to know was what your position on it was. Internet conversation isn't all about the lulz, pwnage, and moral indignation.

you coulda fooled me

Well, you're easily fooled.

I didn't say that I don't engage in the lulz, pwnage, and moral indignation.

[saxitoxin]

I don't think you understand. This -

Competition.

- doesn't need a rebuttle.

It's a chuckle and a wave. Sorry, that's just how it is. It's like a kindergartner asking their teacher to debate the existence of Santa Claus. There's just no intellectual motivation for me to reply.

You marginalize yourself when you dismiss simple economic concepts such as competition.

You marginalize yourself when you latch onto one economic maxim absent understanding of the interplay of corollary maxims, such as the effect of price support on constant returns to scale that would negate your hilarious, one-word thesis "competition."

Again, providing a one-word answer to a serious and enunciated concern is a ridiculously trite dismissal that betrays an absence of understanding of basic knowledge that would be required to further any dialog on this question. I could debate the existence of the Easter Bunny with a first grader but there's simply no reason. You may hold it against me, think it a dodge, whatever. But I simply don't care about your opinion. I only care about those in my intellectual peer group. Seriously, it would be like me replying to twinkle toes when he unleashes his absolutely unhinged anger and rage after someone uses more than a one-syllable word. You two are just scenery on interstate.

Nothing wrong with scenery and I don't mean to offend. That's just the way it is.

Well, you're easily fooled.

I didn't say that I don't engage in the lulz, pwnage, and moral indignation.

ooooh, wut a wascally wabbit!

He really showed you, Scott!

[InkL0sed]

You marginalize yourself when you latch onto one economic maxim absent understanding of the interplay of corollary maxims, such as the effect of price support on constant returns to scale that would negate your hilarious, one-word thesis "competition."

This is actually quite funny, because anybody with a tool called "google" can see that your use of those terms is completely out of place.

Not surprising though; troll that you are, your ultimate goal is not to have legitimate debate, but to attempt to shame others with tactics such as these.

In short, you're clever, but you're not cleverer than I am. You're just good at making people look stupid with weasel words and terms that a layman wouldn't know offhand. That doesn't even make you original. You're like a 6th grader bragging about how much smarter he is to other children by using multi-syllabic words that he doesn't understand. Go back to the sandbox.

[saxitoxin]

You marginalize yourself when you latch onto one economic maxim absent understanding of the interplay of corollary maxims, such as the effect of price support on constant returns to scale that would negate your hilarious, one-word thesis "competition."

This is actually quite funny, because anybody with a tool called "google" can see that your use of those terms is completely out of place.

Well they're really not; I'm talking about a price support - the health purchase mandate - you're talking about constant returns to scale. (At least that's what I assumed the genesis of your price ceiling you identified in your one-word thesis "competition." Apologies if I misconstrued. Single word essays often leave necessary gaps for interpretation.) There's a lot to be said for self-directed learning but spending 30 seconds on Google, I'm afraid, is not the way to go about it inkL0sed.

In short, you're clever, but you're not cleverer than I am ...

and now the chest-thumping begins, like so many tribes of monkeys ...



*Le Sigh*

If there are any adults interested in continuing the confab, please feel free to PM me. When inkL0sed starts preening about the awesome TD he scored during his senior game in HS that's my cue to realize the convo has become a bit too juvenile for my tastes.

[Aradhus]

If there are any adults interested in continuing the confab, please feel free to PM me. When inkL0sed starts preening about the awesome TD he scored during his senior game in HS that's my cue to realize the convo has become a bit too juvenile for my tastes.

Part time bullshit translator reporting for duty.

Sacxless translation: "It was all fun 'n games when I devolved the conversation into juvenile bullshit, but I don't like it when the other boys and girls are juvenile back to me. Waaah. Would somebody hold my hand?"

[saxitoxin]

If there are any adults interested in continuing the confab, please feel free to PM me. When inkL0sed starts preening about the awesome TD he scored during his senior game in HS that's my cue to realize the convo has become a bit too juvenile for my tastes.

Part time bullshit translator reporting for duty.

Sacxless translation: "It was all fun 'n games when I devolved the conversation into juvenile bullshit, but I don't like it when the other boys and girls are juvenile back to me. Waaah. Would somebody hold my hand?"

You attract an interesting rabble, InkL0sed. You should check out Aradhus' other thread where he was chastising TGD for his poor understanding of U.S. tax law. A bit of a Player57832 quality, I think. You two have fun together. Goodnight all.