Senator Menendez of New Jersey is a Democrat. He is up to his eyeballs in trouble right now. First, it was reported that a Florida eye surgeon (who has been a big donor to Senator Menendez) took Menendez to the Dominican republic, several times, on his private jet. Senators are required to disclose such things, and compensate the owner of the jet for the going rate for such trips. Menendez didn't disclose his trips until he got caught. It is reported that there were other trips he didn't disclose and pay for. It is also reported that Senator Menendez paid for sex with underage prostitutes in the Dominican Republic (that's just an allegation). It's also reported (and not disputed that I have seen) that Senator Menendez steered a $500 million port security contract to a security company owned by none other than the Florida surgeon who flew the Senator to the Dominican Republic (I'm sure that was just a coincidence).

No one, other than Foxnews, is giving any meaningful time to this story. MSNBC had Senator Menendez on last week to talk about the State of the Union, and incredibly (or maybe predictably) the investigations never came up during his appearance.

All of the news stations are going crazy over the fact that Senator Marco Rubio, a conservative Republican who is literally Public Enemy #1 to liberals for the forseeable future, took an awkward drink of water during his response to the State Of The Union address.

I didn't see Rubio's appearance. But if all the liberal pundits can do is point out that he had the audacity to take a sip of water, I assume there was nothing in his speech that the liberals felt they could refute.

dont get me started Jimbo....menendez is not even mentioned on CNN however Rubio (note the slow motions shot)......


http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t3#/video/bestoftv/2013/02/14/tsr-moos-drowning-in-water-gate.cnn

For the most part liberals are very immature emotionally . They eat this stuff up!! I work in Cambridge. They actually laugh at stuff like this.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It has been getting some play on the local radio talk but other than that, would never had heard of it...

One think for sure, Everyone knows who Rubio is :)
Perhaps it was diabolically planned
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I read a long story about Menendez on nbcnews (i.e. msnbc) and his compliance issues, sorry to have to tell you this.

As for his sleeping with minors, I don't believe that's part of the investigation. A major news outlet probably isn't going to report on it unless there's some credibility. There's a lot that's on Drudge that the mainstream media (including FOX) often doesn't cover because it's just irresponsible until there's real evidence.

-spence

. A major news outlet probably isn't going to report on it unless there's some credibility

-spence

Spence, I want to thank you for bringing me to tears with this beauty. You are one funny bastard :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, I want to thank you for bringing me to tears with this beauty. You are one funny bastard :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Believe it or not they do have standards. Doesn't mean they don't report on some stupid stuff but an allegation with criminal reprocess ions has a very high threshold.

Hey, did you know that guy in your avatar was for gun bans? Just saying...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Believe it or not they do have standards. Doesn't mean they don't report on some stupid stuff but an allegation with criminal reprocess ions has a very high threshold.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I know a certain group of college lacrosse players that would disagree. I also remember several suicides by wrongly accused by the media, individuals.
Your blind faith does however explain a lot of your positions
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Believe it or not they do have standards. Doesn't mean they don't report on some stupid stuff but an allegation with criminal reprocess ions has a very high threshold.

Hey, did you know that guy in your avatar was for gun bans? Just saying...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hey, go look up the Gun Owners Protection Act . I believe it passed in 86'.
Your wrong but I understand :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Believe it or not they do have standards.
No. They do not. Their only standards are "what panders best to our target audience" and "what furthers the agendas of our executives". Anyone who thinks differently has allowed them to pull the wool over your eyes.

There's a reason I refuse to call them "news organizations". They are nothing more than editorialized, agenda-driven sources for propaganda... all of them.

Hey, go look up the Gun Owners Protection Act . I believe it passed in 86'.
Your wrong but I understand :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Reagan supported the FAWB.

-spence

Reagan supported the FAWB.

-spence

No. A Democrat named Hughes sleezed in an amendment at the 11th hour banning i believe true machine guns. Reagan did take some heat for signing the bill that had this amendment attached .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Believe it or not they do have standards. Doesn't mean they don't report on some stupid stuff but an allegation with criminal reprocess ions has a very high threshold.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Tell that to the Duke lacrosse team whose lives were ruined.

Spence, what you mean to say is, there are high thresholds when the criminal is sympathetic to the liberal agenda.

You don't believe that the underage pristitute thiing is part of the investigation. Which FBI agent told you this? Or are you, as always, dismissive of that which makes your side look immoral and stupid?

No. A Democrat named Hughes sleezed in an amendment at the 11th hour banning i believe true machine guns. Reagan did take some heat for signing the bill that had this amendment attached .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're mixing legislation. Ronald Reagan, your hero and avatar, openly supported the 1994 FAWB.

Perhaps it was just old age.

-spence

You're mixing legislation. Ronald Reagan, your hero and avatar, openly supported the 1994 FAWB.

Perhaps it was just old age.

-spence

Yes, my old age and you are correct. He did support the Brady bill
He did however have a profound impact on the 2nd amendment by appointing Scalia and Kennedy. Without them we almost lost the
2 nd amendment
Still my hero
Now back to the thread 😄
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, I meant Reagan's old age.

-spence

I seem to remember a Rather prominent member of CBS reporting a totally false story on GW Bushes military record. Running with the story prior to having authentication. Those are high standards.

Media controls the country IMHO context context context. Everything can be protrayed a certain way given the appropriate sound bytes and video shots etc. it is a way of life. The under informed just go with it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I seem to remember a Rather prominent member of CBS reporting a totally false story on GW Bushes military record. Running with the story prior to having authentication. Those are high standards.
So you're suggesting the mainstream media should drop it's standards and embrace a suspect report?

-spence

So you're suggesting the mainstream media should drop it's standards and embrace a suspect report?

-spence

Of course not. I am saying they do. Particularly when it benefits their agenda
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Of course not. I am saying they do. Particularly when it benefits their agenda
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Things to slip through the cracks, but that doesn't mean they don't have journalistic standards. I'd note that Rather was pretty much taken down from his throne after that event. Even considering it wasn't a totally false story, but one that had pieces of bad evidence.

-spence

Running with a story that is unsubstantiated particularly when it concerns the POTUS lacks integrity. Regardless of who the standing president is.

It is an unfortunate side effect of modern journalism with all of the instantaneous media outlets available to us te days of great news anchors is over. By the time it hits the 6:00 It has already been reported.

I do feel our current mainstream media twist things to their agenda through context and portrayal which is truly what the original argument is.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Things to slip through the cracks, but that doesn't mean they don't have journalistic standards. I'd note that Rather was pretty much taken down from his throne after that event. Even considering it wasn't a totally false story, but one that had pieces of bad evidence.

-spence
"Journalistic standards" - using this term to describe mainstream media is beyond ridiculous. Every single one of them present agenda-driven, editorialized reporting.

Foxnews, MSNBC and CNN all spend a small percentage of time actually reporting the news and a substantial amount of time setting an emotional response and framing up how their viewers should "feel" about the report. They do not care what the story is, as long as it will appeal their viewers and their viewers will ignore any critical-thinking skills in order to soak up whatever bs opinions are being presented without question.

You seem to be their ideal viewer.

The Menendez story is more interesting the more I read about it. Apparently the tip about his cavorting with underage girls has little to no merit. It might not even be politically motivated as much as criminally motivated by some in PR who don't like the influence of his business friend. The FBI has investigated and found nothing behind it.

For all the beotching about the media not covering it I've read plenty on NBC, the NYTimes and Washington Post.

-spence

another long article yesterday in the NY Times about it.

another long article yesterday in the NY Times about it.

Reporting" nothing to see here, move along" perhaps ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Reporting" nothing to see here, move along" perhaps ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, he certainly could have some ethics violations to answer for...

That's the rub, your left wing media is reporting on this story...they're just pushing the credible parts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Reporting" nothing to see here, move along" perhaps ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So, dod you read it? or ass-u-me-ing?:smash:

Reporting" nothing to see here, move along" perhaps ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why don't you actually read the articles?

There have been lots of articles in the Times on this. I can show you how to search for them if your interested.

No, he certainly could have some ethics violations to answer for...

That's the rub, your left wing media is reporting on this story...they're just pushing the credible parts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
And we all know how ethics violations are handled .
Just so you know... I hope he's not guilty of the sexual accusations but these are arrogant powerful and clearly unethical people. I simple don't put anything past them and the "left media" (your words) have a historical past of selective reporting. Not based on credibility but on their own arrogance and agenda.
Fox is as guilty as CNN
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

another long article yesterday in the NY Times about it.

Here's what I was getting at.

The day after the state of the union address, MSNBC showed the clip of Rubio getting a drink of water, more than 100 times.

A few days before, Sen Menendez was on the air at MSNBC with Red Shultz. Schukltz, being the hard-hitting journalist he is, never mentioned Menendez's ethical lapses.

If you point out that the NYT ran a story (or stories), that is certainly relevent. It would be more relevent if you compared the exposure that the NYT gave to the Menendez story, versus the Rubio (GASP!) water drinking controversy.

By the way, here is a piece in the NYT suggesting that at least part of the Menendez investigation is nothing more than a political smear...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/nyregion/partisan-push-led-to-troubling-revelations-about-senator-menendez.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

"the work going on at this suburban Washington office suite, paid for by donations from prominent Republicans nationwide, is proof that the news media frenzy focusing on his actions to help a Florida eye doctor is at least in part a political smear. "

Does the NYT suggest anywhere that 100% of the media frenzy focusing on Rubio's taking a sip of water, is political smear?

I'm sure the NYT is correct that there is politics involved in the Menendez investigation. But why didn't the NYT similarly dismiss the absurd notion that Rubio's taking a sip of water, means anything whatsoever?

If you point out that the NYT ran a story (or stories), that is certainly relevent. It would be more relevent if you compared the exposure that the NYT gave to the Menendez story, versus the Rubio (GASP!) water drinking controversy.



Post links to all the NYT stories about Rubio gulping the water since you seem to imply they spent more time discussing that vs. Menendez. Then we'll see which has more print.

So, dod you read it? or ass-u-me-ing?:smash:

I don't consider the NYT credible.
That's why I said " perhaps"
Call it an educated guess if you like! . Clever use of dashes 😏
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't consider the NYT credible.
That's why I said " perhaps"
Call it an educated guess if you like! . Clever use of dashes ��
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So, what do you consider credible media then?

Jim, your leaving out the beginning of that quote from the NYT changes the intent of the sentence.

So, what do you consider credible media then?

That's the point Brian !!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim, your leaving out the beginning of that quote from the NYT changes the intent of the sentence.

In what way? The NYT admits there are serious allegations, then states that some of the hubub is nothing more than political smear.

When the NYT ran a front-page story claiming that John McCain's adopted daughter was actually his biological daughter with a mistress, and there was no truth to that...did the NYT admit that it was all political smear? Or is 'smear' only involved when conservatives point out wrongdoing of liberals?

You need to re-read the article.

The quote is as follows:

"To Mr. Menendez and his staff, the work going on at this suburban Washington office suite, paid for by donations from prominent Republicans nationwide, is proof that the news media frenzy focusing on his actions to help a Florida eye doctor is at least in part a political smear."

You said that "By the way, here is a piece in the NYT suggesting that at least part of the Menendez investigation is nothing more than a political smear..." Then you quoted part of the sentence from Menendez or a staffer giving the impression the sentence was from the NYT when infact it was by Mendendez/staffer.

The very next paragraph says "But the results have been troubling revelations. Those documented by The New York Times, The Washington Post and other newspapers involve serious accusations of favoritism by the senator."

That and the whole article indicate that the NYT thinks there is merit to the accusations (other than the child prostitute charges).

Did you find any links to Rubio and his water problem in the NYT yet? I'd like to see them.

You need to re-read the article.

The quote is as follows:

"To Mr. Menendez and his staff, the work going on at this suburban Washington office suite, paid for by donations from prominent Republicans nationwide, is proof that the news media frenzy focusing on his actions to help a Florida eye doctor is at least in part a political smear."

You said that "By the way, here is a piece in the NYT suggesting that at least part of the Menendez investigation is nothing more than a political smear..." Then you quoted part of the sentence from Menendez or a staffer giving the impression the sentence was from the NYT when infact it was by Mendendez/staffer.

The very next paragraph says "But the results have been troubling revelations. Those documented by The New York Times, The Washington Post and other newspapers involve serious accusations of favoritism by the senator."

That and the whole article indicate that the NYT thinks there is merit to the accusations (other than the child prostitute charges).

Did you find any links to Rubio and his water problem in the NYT yet? I'd like to see them.

"That and the whole article indicate that the NYT thinks there is merit to the accusations (other than the child prostitute charges)."

I didn't deny that. But why do you think the NYT found it relevent to mention that some paid GOP operatives are involved? If the story is true, why mention the source? The answer, is to diminish the seriousness of teh charges, and shift some of the blame to Senator Menendez's political opponents.

"Did you find any links to Rubio and his water problem in the NYT yet? I'd like to see them"

Earlier, you made some smug comment to one of the conservatives here about the fact that if he couldn't do the google searches on his own, you'd help him with it. Let's assume you are capable of doing the same Google search I did.

I found coverage in the NYT of the Rubio water drinking. Even if I hadn't, my point about media bias was still valid. I did not say that every single liberal media outlet, with zero exceptions, was trumping up the Rubio water thing. Had I said that, your responses would be relevent. Since I didn't say that, your responses are not as relevent, though they are somewhat relevent. Pointing out one single exception does not refute a generalized statement.

I see you won't comment on MSNBC's coverages of the Rubio water drinking, versus their coverage of the Menendez thing. I wonder why that could be? Hmmm, that's a real head-scratcher.


.

"That and the whole article indicate that the NYT thinks there is merit to the accusations (other than the child prostitute charges)."

I didn't deny that. Then why alter the quote to make it appear that the Times thought it was a smear when that is blatenly false? You also started the whole thread and said that no one other than Fox news was spending any meaningful time on Menendez. A quick search shows that the NYTs has written a few articles on it. But why do you think the NYT found it relevent to mention that some paid GOP operatives are involved? The latest article was about how the story developed. The Times didn't in any away argue that it was false.If the story is true, why mention the source? The answer, is to diminish the seriousness of teh charges, and shift some of the blame to Senator Menendez's political opponents.They didn't do that (other than the child prostitution charge - you're really reaching now

"Did you find any links to Rubio and his water problem in the NYT yet? I'd like to see them"

Earlier, you made some smug comment to one of the conservatives here about the fact that if he couldn't do the google searches on his own, you'd help him with it. Let's assume you are capable of doing the same Google search I did.I did a search on the NYT site and found that they didn't give the press you seem to think they did to Rubio's water problem. I did the search BEFOFE I posted so I wouldn't look as silly as you do right now.

I found coverage in the NYT of the Rubio water drinking. How much? Bc your first post said that "All the news stations are going crazy....." Back up your words and show me how the Times is "going crazy" over the issue! Even if I hadn't, my point about media bias was still valid. I did not say that every single liberal media outlet, with zero exceptions, was trumping up the Rubio water thing. So what do your words "All the news stations are going crazy" mean then? You're the one who finds one example of what you don't like and apply that to all liberals or in this case the news stations. Had I said that it seems like you did say that by the use of your word all, your responses would be relevent. Since I didn't say that:biglaugh:, your responses are not as relevent, though they are somewhat relevent. Pointing out one single exception does not refute a generalized the use of the word all is a generalization?statement. Yet I have pointed out that is exactly what you have done numerous times on this sight. :biglaugh:

I see you won't comment on MSNBC's coverages of the Rubio water drinking, versus their coverage of the Menendez thing. I wonder why that could be? Hmmm, that's a real head-scratcher.
I'm not a big follower of MSNBC. If they did cover Rubio leaching water like a dehumidifer in Mississippi in July, so be it. Maybe they should have covered Obama using a teleprompter - seeing how much has that been discussed here:biglaugh:

.

nm

nm

Paul, here is why you are not someone to be taken seriously.

In my first post, I stated that the NYT admitted the charges against Menendez were serious. You keep saying that I somehow "altered" the article to make it seem like the NYT wasn't admitting to the seriousness of the charges. What you are accusing me of, simply didn't happen. It. Did. Not. Happen. Am I going too fast for you?

When I make generalized statements (and I use hyperbole a lot) you think you can refute them by pointing to one exception. Yet you allow yourself the liberty to say things like "Rubio leeching water like a dehumidifier". If you can use hyperbole, why can't anyone else?

The Rubio water thing was all over NBC, MSNBC, and CNN. I haven't seen much coverage of the Menendez story on those outlets, and I follow these things pretty closely. Can I mathematically prove that those stations gave more coverage to Rubio than Menendez? No, I cannot, I don't have the resources to do that. Nor can I prove mathematically that the sun will rise tomorrow, but I'm pretty sure it's the case.

Paul, here is why you are not someone to be taken seriously.You mean because I've proven you wrong?:biglaugh:

In my first post, I stated that the NYT admitted the charges against Menendez were seriousNo you didn't. Your quote was "By the way, here is a piece in the NYT suggesting that at least part of the Menendez investigation is nothing more than a political smear...". You keep saying that I somehow "altered" the article to make it seem like the NYT wasn't admitting to the seriousness of the charges.That is exactly what you did. You took out the part where the paper said that Menendez and his staff thought it was a smear. What you are accusing me of, simply didn't happen. It. Did. Not. Happen. Am I going too fast for you?Wrong, you did. And am I going too fast for you - (in my best Jim in Ct voice) YOU ALTERED THE SENTENCE BY LEAVING OUT THE FIRST PART.

When I make generalized statements (and I use hyperbole a lot) you think you can refute them by pointing to one exception. Yet you allow yourself the liberty to say things like "Rubio leeching water like a dehumidifier". If you can use hyperbole, why can't anyone elseSo you think that my statement laughing at Rubio's sweating is the same as your statement which started the whole post about the amount of press on the 2 issues:rotf2:?

The Rubio water thing was all over NBC, MSNBC, and CNN. I haven't seen much coverage of the Menendez story on those outlets, and I follow these things pretty closely. Can I mathematically prove that those stations gave more coverage to Rubio than Menendez? No, I cannot, I don't have the resources to do that. Nor can I prove mathematically that the sun will rise tomorrow, but I'm pretty sure it's the case.

So your "emotions" are telling you that they gave more press to Rubio than Menedez :biglaugh: Stick with #s, you're not cut out for this word thing:uhuh:

My emotions say, that if it had been Obama had drank the water, Fox News would have changed their logo to a gif of it on a continuous loop....

My emotions say, that if it had been Obama had drank the water, Fox News would have changed their logo to a gif of it on a continuous loop....

And there in lies the problem, "emotions."
The press is supposed to keep things honest by reporting the facts and keeping both sides honest.
The water thing is not newsworthy because it only means the man was thirsty.
So the man does what we all do everyday, drink when we're thirsty.
Does this mean his message was flawed??? No, but the reporting trys to evoke an emotion that makes
him look inadequate.

Paul, apparently you like the NYT. To their credit, the NYT reported on the Menendez case, although they went out ot their way to state that the story only broke because of political smear. If the allegations are true, who cares about the motives of the people who first reported the ethical violations? Why is that important?

Paul, let me ask you this. The NYT ran an unsubstantiated, front-page story during the 2008 election. The story claimed that John McCaon's adopted daughter was actually his biological daughter that he fathered with a mistress.

Let's forget about McCain's politics (although, his politics are literally all that matter to the NYT). McCain is a hero to any rational person. During a dangerous war, he volunteered to fly jets off of an aircraft carrier and repeatedly put himself in harm's way. As a result, he spent several years getting tortured in a POW camp, as a direct result of his service to his country.

How does the NYT feel that this man deserves to be treated? By taking another heroic act (adopting a daughter from a 3rd world country), and using that heroic act as a club against him.

The NYT is a joke. That's why, until recently, one copy of the Sunday edition was more expensive than one share of stock in the company that prints that liberal rag.

My emotions say, that if it had been Obama had drank the water, Fox News would have changed their logo to a gif of it on a continuous loop....

Your emotions would be 100% wrong. Hannity might use that image to mock the President. I don't think anyone else would. Your 'emotions' have apparently convinced you that Foxnews is the right-wing equivalent of MSNBC. Not even close. Foxnews isn't even as radical as CNN (Hannity being the exception), let alone MSNBC.

Obama has legitimately and honestly made an idiot out of himself so many times, his critics don't have to invent buffoonery where it doesn't exist.

Obama can say that there are 57 states in the US, and that doesn't say anything about him. Obama insults special olympians on national TV (saying he was so bad at bowling, he looked like one of those special olympians), and that doesn't say anything about him. Obama has several close friends who clearly hate this country, and that doesn't say anything about him. Obama supported infanticide as a state senator, and he gets a pass. Obama adds $5 trillion to our debt, with a net gain of almost zero jobs and a huge drop in median wages, and he's not held accountable. But Rubio awkwardly reaches for a bottle of water, and that says somethiing about his qualifications?

So your "emotions" are telling you that they gave more press to Rubio than Menedez :biglaugh: Stick with #s, you're not cut out for this word thing:uhuh:

MSNBC showed the Rubio water clip over 100 times. CNN asked if it was a "career ender". Brian Williams, the NBC anchor, said teh water reach "just might live on forever". Wolf Blitzer said Rubio's drinking water was "profoundly depressing".

The Mainstream Media Are Even Dumber Than You Thought (http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/rubio-reaches-for-water-crime-of-the-century/)

And when the NYT gets around to mentioning the Memendez allegations, they can't do it without stating explicitly that part of this is nothing more than "political smear".

Here's more...

Rubio vs. Menendez: A tale of two Hispanic senators and media hypocrisy - The Hill's Pundits Blog (http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/media/283471-rubio-vs-menendez-a-tale-hispanic-senators-and-media-hypocrisy)


"Media Research Center reports that there have been only seven stories on CBS, ABC and NBC about Menendez in three weeks, yet the Mark Foley story of his racy emails to pages warranted 152 stories by those same networks in a two-week period."

CBS, NBC, and ABC are the 3 major networks. Combined, the 3 of them did a whopping 7 stories on Menendez, in 3 weeks. Yet those same 3 netwoks did 152 stories about Mark Foley's actions?

So no, it's clearly not just my emotions at play here. What's on display here is my ability to see things as they are, and draw correct conclusions, regardless of political ideology.

Your response?

Paul, apparently you like the NYT. To their credit, the NYT reported on the Menendez case, although they went out ot their way to state that the story only broke because of political smear. If the allegations are true, who cares about the motives of the people who first reported the ethical violations? Why is that important?

Paul, let me ask you this. The NYT ran an unsubstantiated, front-page story during the 2008 election. The story claimed that John McCaon's adopted daughter was actually his biological daughter that he fathered with a mistress. Can you pls. post a link to it b/c I don't remember that happening. If it did happen, I condemn it.

Let's forget about McCain's politics (although, his politics are literally all that matter to the NYT). McCain is a hero to any rational person. Similiar to Kerry?:uhuh:
During a dangerous war, he volunteered to fly jets off of an aircraft carrier and repeatedly put himself in harm's way. As a result, he spent several years getting tortured in a POW camp, as a direct result of his service to his country.

How does the NYT feel that this man deserves to be treated? By taking another heroic act (adopting a daughter from a 3rd world country), and using that heroic act as a club against him.

The NYT is a joke. That's why, until recently, one copy of the Sunday edition was more expensive than one share of stock in the company that prints that liberal rag.

The only thing I remember about McCain's baby was that the Bush campaign was putting out flyers in the 2000 primary (one of the nastiest campaigns ever) with that story, that he committed treason as a POW in Vietnam, he was mentally unstable b/c of being a POW, a homosexual and an addict (and also said his wife was an addict). I'd be interested in seeing how the Times 8 years later would have brought up the same thing???

Still going on about a mistatement on the # of states. That is petty - but not unexpected.

The only thing I remember about McCain's baby was that the Bush campaign was putting out flyers in the 2000 primary (one of the nastiest campaigns ever) with that story, that he committed treason as a POW in Vietnam, he was mentally unstable b/c of being a POW, a homosexual and an addict (and also said his wife was an addict). I'd be interested in seeing how the Times 8 years later would have brought up the same thing???

Still going on about a mistatement on the # of states. That is petty - but not unexpected.

Paul, I posted a fair amount of evidence, from multiple sources, that directly supports my claim of liberal bias. Your response is to say that as long as Bush did it as well, then it's therefore OK?

Wow. Now that is a creative (read: desperate) way of trying to get out of the intellectual corner I backed you into. According to you, the media code of ethics should come from the campaign tactics of George Bush. Got it.

Once again, you ask me to do your research for you? On the NYT hit piece on McCain? That's interesting, because earlier in this very thread, you smugly claimed that you could show someone else how to research things on the net. Now all of a sudden, you need help to see if the NYT really ran that hit piece on McCain?

I don't need to Google that, because it happened, and I remember it, because it was so unethical and so widely condemned (maybe not widely condemned by those in your circles who routinely resort to such tactics). If you were so out of touch that you aren't aware of a media smear perpetrated by (what used to be) a major newspaper against a titanic hero, that's your issue, not mine. Google it, you'll see.

"Still going on about a mistatement on the # of states. That is petty - but not unexpected"

Huh? What am I misstating?

The only thing I remember about McCain's baby was that the Bush campaign was putting out flyers in the 2000 primary .

OK. So you remember that Bush's political team (a bunch of conservatives) was unethical, but you have no knowledge of the NYT (a bunch of liberals), which you apparently are a fan of, doing something equally loathsome to the same Senator McCain.

You might want to either work on your memory, or more likely, reconsider where you get your information.

Paul, I posted a fair amount of evidence, from multiple sources, that directly supports my claim of liberal bias. Your response is to say that as long as Bush did it as well, then it's therefore OK?Huh, you're imagining things again. Where did I say that? The discussion was about the NYT and whether they spent more time on Rubio or Menendez and you start going off on tangents.

Wow. Now that is a creative (read: desperate) way of trying to get out of the intellectual corner I backed you into. According to you, the media code of ethics should come from the campaign tactics of George Bush. Got it.Did I say that? Go back and reread the discussion.

Once again, you ask me to do your research for you? On the NYT hit piece on McCain? That's interesting, because earlier in this very thread, you smugly claimed that you could show someone else how to research things on the net. Now all of a sudden, you need help to see if the NYT really ran that hit piece on McCain?Ok, I did a search and in late 2007, the NYT was discussing the 2008 campain and how in 2000 McCain was slandered by Bush's campaign. So I'm asking myself how could they write an article in 2008 saying McCain had an illegimate child (which is what you stated). Guess what, I couldn't find anything so I'll ask again to pls. post a link to a story showing that.

I don't need to Google that, because it happened, and I remember it, because it was so unethical and so widely condemned (maybe not widely condemned by those in your circles who routinely resort to such tactics). If you were so out of touch that you aren't aware of a media smear perpetrated by (what used to be) a major newspaper against a titanic hero, that's your issue, not mine. Google it, you'll see.Pls. show me a link.

"Still going on about a mistatement on the # of states. That is petty - but not unexpected"

Huh? What am I misstating?

See, as I said you have a reading problem. I didn't say you made a mistatement. It obviously referred to Pres. Obama making a simple mistatement and that you're a petty person to keep bringing that up as if he doesn't know how many states there are.

OK. So you remember that Bush's political team (a bunch of conservatives) was unethical, but you have no knowledge of the NYT (a bunch of liberals), which you apparently are a fan of:huh: , doing something equally loathsome to the same Senator McCain.

You might want to either work on your memory, or more likely, reconsider where you get your information.

Maybe I do have a memory problem but rather than continuing to throw insults around pls. post some links to the story. I've asked you politely a few times.

Maybe I do have a memory problem but rather than continuing to throw insults around pls. post some links to the story. I've asked you politely a few times.

Paul, I agree that Obama simply mis-spoke about the number of states. I don't think that mis-statement says anything at all about his qualifications.

But the same folks who agree that Obama's mis-statement was not a big deal, are now going berserk about Rubio's reaching for a glass of water. That's exactly the bias I'm talking about. The media barely mentioned Obama's mis-statement (which was the correct thing for the media to do), but the media was obsessed with Rubio's reaching for a glass of water (which was ridiculous for them to do).

Can you honestly tell me that you see no discrepancy between the coverage of those 2 events?

"I've asked you politely a few times"

John McCain lobbyist controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain_lobbyist_controversy)



.

Obama is starting to get some tough hard hitting questions from
interviewers. Example-
"Mr President, are you considering Hawaii as the place for your
Presidential Library?"
I kid you not.

I think our nations economic issues would be resolved if you people spent more time producing "ouput" other than Blab on the internet!

"output", you mean like hard work leading to feelngs of accomplishment,
self worth,self determination and a job well done?
That's so old 50s and just leads to independence.

"output", you mean like hard work leading to feelngs of accomplishment,
self worth,self determination and a job well done?
That's so old 50s and just leads to independence.

I have those things most of the year until I do my taxes......

I feel your pain on the taxes, punishment for being a hard worker. :(
I'll still take the self worth a job well done produces though.

I feel your pain on the taxes, punishment for being a hard worker. :(
I'll still take the self worth a job well done produces though.
I know that I'm going to probably have to cut a $7k-10k check when I finally get around to doing the taxes.

The firmest kick in the balls is thinking "okay, I need to produce about $12k in revenue so that I have enough money after taxes to *pay my taxes*."

Ya JD, right now your working close to 1/2 the year to pay your taxes.
But don't worry, Obama will see to it that you will pay more.

Ya JD, right now your working close to 1/2 the year to pay your taxes.
But don't worry, Obama will see to it that you will pay more.
My fiancee never believed me when I told her that she didn't start earning money for herself until the end of the day on Tuesday. Then her W-2 came in last week and everything clicked:
her: "What the *(^&%!!! $xx,xxx in federal taxes?!?"
me: I just smiled and said, "Remember when you used to make fun of me for calling the government Uncle Scam? Now you understand why."

Hey, at least Obama's health care reform resulted in me paying an extra $2500 in medical insurance costs last year.:smash:

Sensible, responsible people are losing the battle. We're aren't wealthy enough to be minimally affected by Uncle Scam and not poor enough to benefit.

**ROCK**---> Us <--- **HARD PLACE**

Hey, at least Obama's health care reform resulted in me paying an extra $2500 in medical insurance costs last year.:smash:



John,

What aspect of the law caused your insurance to go up $2,500 last year?

Thanks

John,

What aspect of the law caused your insurance to go up $2,500 last year?

Thanks

Paul - the % increase in my insurance since O's plan passed has increased subsantially. I cant tell you what part of the plan influenced that but I know its up the last year way more than previous years.

what has been implemented so far has not impacted people's costs that much.

In 2010 adult child coverage until 26, lifetime $ limits prohibited and preventive care w/no cost sharing where all implemented.
In 2012 $1 per member per month for self funded plans was implement.

what has been implemented so far has not impacted people's costs that much.

In 2010 adult child coverage until 26, lifetime $ limits prohibited and preventive care w/no cost sharing where all implemented.
.


I'm not sure what you classify as "not that much". But these things you itemized (other than the $1 per member per month), would be considered significant to any actuary who does ratemaking for healthcare.

How about the ban on limits for pre-existing conditions? Has that gone in yet? That's huge.

I'm not saying that it's bad policy to eliminate lifetime limits or to eliminate bans for pre-existing conditions. But nobody, not even Barack the Almighty, can implement such things without the resultant increase in costs.

Despite liberals' hysterical claims to the contrary, health insurance is highly regulated, and the profit margins for that industry are pretty tight. You cannot increase coverage without increasing costs. It's just not possible.

There are things that could have been implemented to offset the increased costs (like tort reform), but the Trial Lawyers Lobby made sure that the Democratic-controlled Senate would never agree to that.

what has been implemented so far has not impacted people's costs that much.

In 2010 adult child coverage until 26, lifetime $ limits prohibited and preventive care w/no cost sharing where all implemented.
In 2012 $1 per member per month for self funded plans was implement.

you're thinking like person, not like a corporation. Who is adminstering and providing coverage for ALL of obamacare? Insurance companies. They have me so they hit me for more $$$ to hedge their bets against future impacts of taking on all of the US. Im now (or soon) in a pool with everyone, before I was in a pool only with people who could afford insurance.

The benefit exchanges won't start until 2014 so the impact of covering the uninsured won't happen for a while although I understand what you're saying about ramping up premiums (but don't believe that is happening). There are regs. in place so currently on a fully insured plan, the insurer has to refund $s to the comp./emp. if the loss ratio is lower than the regs. If you work for a larger employer, you're probably self insured and the new mandates that have been already put in place didn't impact the cost that much. Supposedly there is a long article in Time mag. about how costs at hospitals are out of control - and that has nothing to do w/Obama care.

And Johnny's said that his cost went up in 2012 $2,500 b/c of Obamacare (not what will happen in 2014).

The benefit exchanges won't start until 2014 so the impact of covering the uninsured won't happen for a while although I understand what you're saying about ramping up premiums (but don't believe that is happening). There are regs. in place so currently on a fully insured plan, the insurer has to refund $s to the comp./emp. if the loss ratio is lower than the regs. If you work for a larger employer, you're probably self insured and the new mandates that have been already put in place didn't impact the cost that much. Supposedly there is a long article in Time mag. about how costs at hospitals are out of control - and that has nothing to do w/Obama care.

And Johnny's said that his cost went up in 2012 $2,500 b/c of Obamacare (not what will happen in 2014).

Paul - your entire response is assumptions. the rise my insurance premiums is a direct result of obamacare. trust me, i do my co.s planning

If you work for a larger employer, you're probably self insured and the new mandates that have been already put in place didn't impact the cost that much. Supposedly there is a long article in Time mag. about how costs at hospitals are out of control - and that has nothing to do w/Obama care.
First, I'm self-employed. I don't have the luxury of "working for a larger employer" and like the millions of other small businesses in this country, I can shop rates but do not have the luxury of increasing employee contribution like what happens with those "larger employers". Also, concerning those larger employers and how "the new mandates... didn't impact the cost that much", are you forgetting the whole part of mandate allowing offspring to be on their parent's insurance through 26 years old? I guarantee something like that had a major impact for self-insured businesses.

Second, that article in Time about out of control costs at the hospital, this was my #1 complaint about Obamacare... it did nothing to address end costs even though Obama promised rates would come down. The short-sightedness of Obama and the Democrats when shoving this load of horse crap down our throats completely overlooked "WHY" costs are so high - bs malpractice suits, ER's being used as primary care clinics, unlimited health care for illegals.

This whole friggin government is so focused on "how do we enact legislation" that they completely ignore "why is it needed".

The benefit exchanges won't start until 2014 so the impact of covering the uninsured won't happen for a while although I understand what you're saying about ramping up premiums (but don't believe that is happening). There are regs. in place so currently on a fully insured plan, the insurer has to refund $s to the comp./emp. if the loss ratio is lower than the regs. If you work for a larger employer, you're probably self insured and the new mandates that have been already put in place didn't impact the cost that much. Supposedly there is a long article in Time mag. about how costs at hospitals are out of control - and that has nothing to do w/Obama care.

And Johnny's said that his cost went up in 2012 $2,500 b/c of Obamacare (not what will happen in 2014).

"If you work for a larger employer, you're probably self insured and the new mandates that have been already put in place didn't impact the cost that much."

Huh? If I run a large compoany that self-insures, these changes increase my expected loss costs by the same amount as they would increase if I was a health insurance company. Large companies that self insure, typically self-insure the lower end of costs. They buy insurance policies for the catastrophic stuff. And their employees pay a portion of the premium.

Paul, you keep making assumptions (like you don't believe premiums are being ramped up, and that if you work for a large company, your premiums haven't gone up much) that are wild speculation at best, demonstrably false at worst.

Healthcare costs are not going down as the Messiah promised they would.

Also, concerning those larger employers and how "the new mandates... didn't impact the cost that much", are you forgetting the whole part of mandate allowing offspring to be on their parent's insurance through 26 years old? I guarantee something like that had a major impact for self-insured businesses.

.

Of course it did. PaulS won't want to admit that, because that would be admitting that Obama was dead wrong when he said costs would come down.

Of course it did. PaulS won't want to admit that, because that would be admitting that Obama was dead wrong when he said costs would come down.
PaulS and spence talk in obtuse language with no detail when supporting Obama's policies... why?

Because when you are clear, detailed and support points with facts (as opposed to fluffy, feel-good conjecture or spence's "zingers") it is clear that the end results do not support Obama's propaganda.

Sensible, responsible people are losing the battle. We're aren't wealthy enough to be minimally affected by Uncle Scam and not poor enough to benefit.



PERFECT analysis. :btu:
Everyone should be required to watch Judge Judy for a week to see
how we are being ripped off.
Problem is "the workers" are still working at 4 pm, when the show airs, to provide the benefits for these system milkers and for the ones home watching having a beer and cigar on our $ and taking notes. Unbelievable.

Of course it did. PaulS won't want to admit that, because that would be admitting that Obama was dead wrong when he said costs would come down.

Yes costs would come down and any increases would be offset by computerizing
and streamlining the system.
BTW, when will Obamacare be defunded as promised by some members of Congress if it was voted in?

Yes costs would come down and any increases would be offset by computerizing
and streamlining the system.
BTW, when will Obamacare be defunded as promised by some members of Congress if it was voted in?

Installing computers will not offset the increased costs of keeping kids on parents' plans till age 26, of abolishing lifetime caps on insurance benefits, of or abolish bans based on pre-existing conditions. Streamlining will save some money to be sure, but nowhere near enough to oiffset the increased costs that are a direct result of increasing the benefits.

I'm in favor of getting rid of bans for pre-existing conditions by the way, I think it's the ethical thing to do. And I'm willing to pay a tax hike for that. I just don't want Obama telling me he can wave his magic hand and add all that while lowering costs. If the Medicare system 'goes paperless', that will save money. Those savings will be dwarfed by the increased costs.

Paul - your entire response is assumptions. the rise my insurance premiums is a direct result of obamacare. trust me, i do my co.s planning

And yet you can't tell me what % is attributed to ObamaCare. I noted things that have already been implemented. Johnny said his costs went up $2,500 b/c of Obamacare. The things that have already been implemented aren't that expensive. The preexisting conditions is prob. the most exp. at this point but not $2,500
I'm not sure what you classify as "not that much". But these things you itemized (other than the $1 per member per month), would be considered significant to any actuary who does ratemaking for healthcare.

How about the ban on limits for pre-existing conditions? Has that gone in yet? That's huge. 2011 - estimated impact up to 0.3% with outliers to 1%.

I'm not saying that it's bad policy to eliminate lifetime limits or to eliminate bans for pre-existing conditions. But nobody, not even Barack the Almighty, can implement such things without the resultant increase in costs.

Despite liberals' hysterical claims to the contrary, health insurance is highly regulated, and the profit margins for that industry are pretty tight. You cannot increase coverage without increasing costs. It's just not possible.

There are things that could have been implemented to offset the increased costs (like tort reform), but the Trial Lawyers Lobby made sure that the Democratic-controlled Senate would never agree to that.

Tort reform has a place but it is minor $s

"If you work for a larger employer, you're probably self insured and the new mandates that have been already put in place didn't impact the cost that much."

Huh? If I run a large compoany that self-insures, these changes increase my expected loss costs by the same amount as they would increase if I was a health insurance companyYes, for the items that apply to both fully insured and self funded - but not all of them do. . Large companies that self insure, typically self-insure the lower end of costs. They buy insurance policies for the catastrophic stuff. And their employees pay a portion of the premium.That is called stop loss insurance. An town most likely self insure but won't buy stop loss insurance

Paul, you keep making assumptions (like you don't believe premiums are being ramped up, and that if you work for a large company, your premiums haven't gone up much) that are wild speculation at best, demonstrably false at worst.

Healthcare costs are not going down as the Messiah promised they would.

I didn't claim that they would go down but Johnny claimed that they went up b/c of Obamacare but still hasn't provided 1 bit of evidence.

First, I'm self-employed. I don't have the luxury of "working for a larger employer" and like the millions of other small businesses in this country, I can shop rates but do not have the luxury of increasing employee contribution like what happens with those "larger employers". Also, concerning those larger employers and how "the new mandates... didn't impact the cost that much", are you forgetting the whole part of mandate allowing offspring to be on their parent's insurance through 26 years old? I guarantee something like that had a major impact for self-insured businesses.


Estimated cost to cover to age 26 from age 19 range from 0.5% of claims to 1.5% of claims. If the policy had students covered to age 23, this would have increased costs 0.9%. And if the policy had students covered to 25, the new regs. would cost an est. 0.7%. So again, where did the $2,500 you stated come from?

PaulS and spence talk in obtuse language with no detail when supporting Obama's policies... why?

Because when you are clear, detailed and support points with facts (as opposed to fluffy, feel-good conjecture or spence's "zingers") it is clear that the end results do not support Obama's propaganda.

I've provided you lots of detail by stating what has already been implemented and you have not provided one bit of evidence to support your statement that your costs have increased $2,500 b/c of Obamacare. Is this evidence of the emotions Buckman mentioned in an earlier post? No evidence, just a feeling Obamacare has caused your costs to increase?

I didn't claim that they would go down but Johnny claimed that they went up b/c of Obamacare but still hasn't provided 1 bit of evidence.

You didn't say costs would go down, but you did absolutely say they wouldn't go up much. And across the country, people's healthcare costs are rising by much more than the rate of inflation. You said companies aren't ramping up premiums because of Obamacare. What's your proof of that? Did you conduct a survey of all the largest companies, talk to the Employee Benefits department, and find out how much of the % increases are due to Obamacare? Or are you speculating, and making assumptions that are favorable to the man you support?

Obama said healthcare costs would come down. That's what he said. That's not what is happening. Tell me where I'm wrong, please.

You didn't say costs would go down, but you did absolutely say they wouldn't go up much. And I've given you actuarial est. of the increases - none of them would justify a $2,500 increase in Johnny's premium. And across the country, people's healthcare costs are rising by much more than the rate of inflation. And they have for many, many years You said companies aren't ramping up premiums because of Obamacare. What's your proof of that? The minimum loss ratio law. Companies have to now give return premium if the claims don't hit a minimum loss ratio. Did you conduct a survey of all the largest companies, talk to the Employee Benefits department, and find out how much of the % increases are due to Obamacare? No, but has Johhny or you provided 1 piece of evidence to back his claim that costs went up $2,500 b/c of Obamacare? Or are you speculating, and making assumptions that are favorable to the man you support?I've posted what has been implemented so far and the est. claim cost increase of each. So that isn't speculation.

Obama said healthcare costs would come down. That's what he said. That's not what is happening. Tell me where I'm wrong, please.

So what discussion do you want to have? Johnny's $2,500 cost estimate or Obamacare? B/C your're mixing the 2.

Estimated cost to cover to age 26 from age 19 range from 0.5% of claims to 1.5% of claims.

Where did you get this data?

Let's say I have a typical policy for my wife and I, total cost is around $900 a month for a middle-aged couple (that includes what the employee pays, as well as what the employer pays, in other words, the total cost of a health insurance policy).

Let's say that now, because of Obamacare, I have to include coverage to my 25 year-old son. If I assume the high-end of your estimate (1.5%), you're telling me that adding my son only adds $13.50 a month to the cost of my policy(.015 x 900 = 13.5)??

No way, PaulS, no way...

A healthy 25 year-old will pay hundreds of dollars a month for a typical health insurance policy. Not $13.50. That is much more than the 1.5% increase you cited.

Johnny D, you are pretty young, and I believe self-insured. When you were 25, could you get a health insurance policy for $13.50 a month? Maybe in Zimbabwe, not in America.

Paul S -

You didn't say costs would go down, but you did absolutely say they wouldn't go up much. And I've given you actuarial est. of the increases - none of them would justify a $2,500 increase in Johnny's premium. And across the country, people's healthcare costs are rising by much more than the rate of inflation. And they have for many, many years You said companies aren't ramping up premiums because of Obamacare. What's your proof of that? The minimum loss ratio law. Companies have to now give return premium if the claims don't hit a minimum loss ratio. Did you conduct a survey of all the largest companies, talk to the Employee Benefits department, and find out how much of the % increases are due to Obamacare? No, but has Johhny or you provided 1 piece of evidence to back his claim that costs went up $2,500 b/c of Obamacare? Or are you speculating, and making assumptions that are favorable to the man you support?I've posted what has been implemented so far and the est. claim cost increase of each. So that isn't speculation.

"I've given you actuarial est. of the increases "

You posted some numbers without any links. I am a credentialed actuary, though I don't work in healthcare. There is no way that adding a 26 year-old to an "average" policy is only a 1.5% rate increase for an "average" couple. If that was true, kids that age could get health insurance policies for $25 a month, and they can't.

"And they have (health costs have gone up) for many, many years "

Ah. But Obama was the one claimed he could reverse that trend. And he didn't.

"The minimum loss ratio law. Companies have to now give return premium if the claims don't hit a minimum loss ratio"

That's not really anything new. Before Obama descended from the heavens, healthcare was already highly regulated by states. Companies already had to release their combined ratios to justify rate levels.

Companies are raising rates. If this loss ratio law has any teeth, these companies must truly believe that they need the higher rates, right?

"has Johhny or you provided 1 piece of evidence to back his claim that costs went up $2,500 b/c of Obamacare?"

I made no such claim. You made the claim that the effect of Obamacare has a negligible impact on loss costs. You typed in some numbers with no link to any study. And your numbers make no sense whatsoever.

Paul, please show me where a 25 year-old can get a healthcare policy for 1.5% of what his parents pay for a policy? Show me a policy for a typical middle-aged couple, that only increases in price by 1.5% by adding a 25 year-old? Show me that, and I will admit you are correct. Good luck with that.

I've provided you lots of detail by stating what has already been implemented and you have not provided one bit of evidence to support your statement that your costs have increased $2,500 b/c of Obamacare. Is this evidence of the emotions Buckman mentioned in an earlier post? No evidence, just a feeling Obamacare has caused your costs to increase?
I provide a significant amount of event production work for one of the country's largest Electronic Medical Records companies. Their events typically consist of VP and C-level individuals from large hospital and doctor networks discussing exactly what we're talking about here.

Obviously there is not much validity in me stating "well, what two years of research by them has shown..." so I'll try and see if they've published anything that validates my statements.

Frankly, I appreciate the detail. I'll need to review some numbers and follow up.

So what discussion do you want to have? Johnny's $2,500 cost estimate or Obamacare? B/C your're mixing the 2.

I'm not mixing anything. I never claimed that Johnny's policy increased directly because of Obamacare.

I can buy that the loss costs for a 25 year-old are a small fraction of the loss costs for our whole population. But you can't look at it that way, because the healthcare loss costs are disproportionately driven by seniors who aren't paying their fair share. So any added cost is absorbed by those who are already subsidizing senior citizens and those on Medicaid. So if the impact is 1.5% of the total, those that actually pay into the system, have to pay much more than 1.5%.

And I don't believe that covering pre-existing conditions only costs pennies. If that were the case, companies would already be doing that.

Paul, why are many businesses avoiding the costs of Obamacare by cutting hours and cutting employees? If the effect of Obamacare were as negligible as you claim, why are so many businesses seeking, and getting, exemptions?

I'm sorry Paul. Obama has his talents. But even he is subject to this fundamental law of economics: you can't get somethin' for nothin'.

Paul, why are many businesses avoiding the costs of Obamacare by cutting hours and cutting employees? If the effect of Obamacare were as negligible as you claim, why are so many businesses seeking, and getting, exemptions?
Weren't the effects of Obamacare supposed to be an average decrease in premiums?

Jim, what is your actuarial certification?

I have to go to a meeting for a few hours.

Weren't the effects of Obamacare supposed to be an average decrease in premiums?

God damn right. Obama was going to force companies to offer unlimited lifetime benefits, force companies to cover pre-existing conditions, force companies to cover children to age 26, force companies to provide birth control. All that, and he said costs would come down.

If he could pull that off, I would be his biggest fan. But not only could he not pull it off, no one calls him on it.

Jim, what is your actuarial certification?

I have to go to a meeting for a few hours.

Fair question. I am a Fellow of the Casualty Actuarial Society. As such, I'm far from an expert on healthcare, which is covered by another actuarial society and a different track of exams is required to be a healthcare actuary. But I know that if you increase coverage, and don't do something else drastic (like serious tort reform), costs are not going to decrease. Costs cannot decrease.

You posted some numbers without any links. I am a credentialed actuary, though I don't work in healthcare. There is no way that adding a 26 year-old to an "average" policy is only a 1.5% rate increase for an "average" couple. If that was true, kids that age could get health insurance policies for $25 a month, and they can't.

Your wrong b/c your making the wrong assumptions. First, I said "claims" would increase 1.5% in the example I gave - not premium. You take claims add the insurance companies, profit, expenses, taxes, etc. Still it is not much higher than the 1.5% - prob. 1.875%. Next, you're assuming that your claims will go up that amount - they won't. You, your wife, and child won't have additional claims. Johnny (said fiancee so he is single and I'll assume he doesn't have kids) won't have an increase in claims. The 50 year old who has a child covered under his policy b.c. the child was a student age 22 won't have an increase in claims. The working 24 year old with coverage won't have an increase in claims.

The only person who has an increase in claims is the person whose child wasn't insured b/c the policy wouldn't cover them (like a un/self/underemployed 22 year old non student). So total claims will increase 1.5% but we all will share the cost.



"And they have (health costs have gone up) for many, many years "

Ah. But Obama was the one claimed he could reverse that trend. And he didn't.If you want to discuss that, it is a different issue. I said I didn't see how Obamacare increased Johnny's premium $2,500.

"The minimum loss ratio law. Companies have to now give return premium if the claims don't hit a minimum loss ratio"

"has Johhny or you provided 1 piece of evidence to back his claim that costs went up $2,500 b/c of Obamacare?"

I made no such claim. You made the claim that the effect of Obamacare has a negligible impact on loss costs. You typed in some numbers with no link to any study. And your numbers make no sense whatsoever.Really, I just showed you how you seem to have made some bad assumptions.

Paul, please show me where a 25 year-old can get a healthcare policy for 1.5% of what his parents pay for a policy? Show me a policy for a typical middle-aged couple, that only increases in price by 1.5% by adding a 25 year-old? Show me that, and I will admit you are correct. Good luck with that.So now that I have showed that you have made what appears to be bad assumptions are you going to admit that I am correct?

Fair question. I am a Fellow of the Casualty Actuarial Society. :claps: But I know that if you increase coverage, and don't do something else drastic (like serious tort reform), costs are not going to decrease. Costs cannot decrease.

Tort reform is small bucks (still part of the answer). I have not stated anywhere here that costs would go down. Bringing everyone (young and healthy) may do it but I don't know.

Let's try to estimate his 2012 premium and back into 2011.

$900 - your stated family cost
x 12 months
$10,800 your annual premium
50% - my estimated for what I think single coverage for Johnny was in 2012 based on your 3 or more family coverage
$5,400 Johhny's 2012 premium
- $2,500 His estimate of what Obamacare cost him in 2012
$2,900 what his estimate of what his 2012 premium would have been w/o Obamacare
$2,636 - 2011 premium. Assuming 10% trend for 2012. This is what his company would have increased Johnny's premium from
2011 to get to the $2,900.

So it appears Johnny's premium would have increased from $2,636 for 2011 to $5,400 in 2012. 205% Is that what happened? Maybe my #s are off - but where?

Jim - I work for a health insurer so the %s I quote where from internal doc. which I can't post here.

Here is the book of business averages for the dependents so pls. let me know where my numbers don't make sense?

The shading indicates high and low estimates.

Tort reform is small bucks (still part of the answer). I have not stated anywhere here that costs would go down. Bringing everyone (young and healthy) may do it but I don't know.

Let's try to estimate his 2012 premium and back into 2011.

$900 - your stated family cost
x 12 months
$10,800 your annual premium
50% - my estimated for what I think single coverage for Johnny was in 2012 based on your 3 or more family coverage
$5,400 Johhny's 2012 premium
- $2,500 His estimate of what Obamacare cost him in 2012
$2,900 what his estimate of what his 2012 premium would have been w/o Obamacare
$2,636 - 2011 premium. Assuming 10% trend for 2012. This is what his company would have increased Johnny's premium from
2011 to get to the $2,900.

So it appears Johnny's premium would have increased from $2,636 for 2011 to $5,400 in 2012. 205% Is that what happened? Maybe my #s are off - but where?

"Tort reform is small bucks "

Based on what? I know politicians on your side are against tort reform bacause they take huge $$ from the Trial Lawyers lobby, but that alone doesn't mean tort reform isn't meaningful. Tell an OB/GYN or a neurologist that tort reform is "small bucks", and they'll tell you that you don't know what you're talking about. Medical Malpractice insurance is a huge expense for doctors in many fields. You dismiss it as "small bucks", with no supporting data whatsoever, just because you want it to be true. PaulS, I can state here that I look like Brad Pitt, but sadly, that alone doesn't make it so.

I do work in reserving Medical Malpractice claims. The lawyers get huge, huge sums of money. It is not "small bucks" just because your hero won't implement it.

I never claimed what % of Johnny's increase was due to Obamacare.

Paul, you are still saying that Obamacare did not cause premium increases. You still have not backed that up with anything other than assumptions (which conveniently support your conclusion) and unsubstantiated nunbers.

Jim - I work for a health insurer so the %s I quote where from internal doc. which I can't post here.

That's very convenient.

Here is the book of business averages for the dependents so pls. let me know where my numbers don't make sense?

The shading indicates high and low estimates.

I don't know what that is. As I stated, even if the loss costs for a 26 year-old are 1.5% of the total, that does not mean that we all expect a 1.5% increase because of that. Because not everyone pays into the system. The smaller group that has to bear the burden of that additional cost, necessarily pays more than 1.5%, to make up for the fact that so many people aren't currently paying their fair share. Yuor chart, whatever that is, doesn't address that. So you cannot use that chart to extrapolate what the resultant premium increases are for the folks that pay.

And forgive me, but if you work in this industry and think that tort reform and med/mal insurance is "small bucks", that's irrefutable proof that your political ideology is preventing an objective review of the facts.

I never claimed what % of Johnny's increase was due to Obamacare.

Paul, you are still saying that Obamacare did not cause premium increases. Yup, not to the magnitude Johnny said b/c nothing was implemented prior to 2012 that would account for a $2,500 increase in 2012You still have not backed that up with anything other than assumptions (which conveniently support your conclusion) and unsubstantiated nunbers.

No assumptions - I gave you insurance company book of business estimates. You ignore everything you don't like.

Based on some of your statements on the $25 policy and others, I really don't think you're an actuary.

No assumptions - I gave you insurance company book of business estimates. You ignore everything you don't like.

Based on some of your statements on the $25 policy and others, I really don't think you're an actuary.

"No assumptions "

No?? Really?? How about your statement that tort reform amounts to "small bucks"? That wasn't an assumption on your part? You have an Excel spreadsheet, that maybe you just created on your own computer for all I know, to support that?

"Based on some of your statements on the $25 policy and others, I really don't think you're an actuary"

They showed, in an admittedly exaggerated way, that given that not everyone pays into the system, those that do pay, must pay a higher incremental cost than your overall average. If the overall impact is +1.5%, and not everyone pays into the system, then those that do pay, must necessarily see an increase of more than 1.5%. Correct or incorrect?

Given that you think Obama is doing an acceptable job handling the economy, I'm not all that concerned by what you think of my credentials. My company doesn't sell health insurance, but we do sell re-insurance to health insurance companies. Gives them a hedge against a catastrophic healthcare expenditure from any one insured. We're one of the biggest carriers in that space. So I'm not totally ignorant here. For sure, I know that you can't increase what's covered, and decrease costs, without seriously addressing fraud, defensive medicine (providing tests that aren't necessary, which is linked to tort reform), and tort reform.

"No assumptions "

No?? Really?? How about your statement that tort reform amounts to "small bucks"? That wasn't an assumption on your part? You have an Excel spreadsheet, that maybe you just created on your own computer for all I know, to support that?



And what did the tort reform have to do with my initial statement? Nothing. Isn't that an opinion?

As I said, I'm sorry but I really don't think you're an actuary.

And what did the tort reform have to do with my initial statement? Nothing. Isn't that an opinion?

As I said, I'm sorry but I really don't think you're an actuary.

Sigh. You said tort reform was "small bucks". Then you claimed that you made no assumptions. Your statement about tort reform was an assumption, and a poor assumption at that.

"I really don't think you're an actuary"

You also "don't think" tort reform is a potential source of significant decreases in healthcare costs, despite the fact that any living OB/GYN or neurosurgeon would disagree with you. Doctors are literally being driven out of the OB/GYN field baceuse of Medical Malpractice insurance costs. So I'm not all that concerned with your thoughts...

I'm just going to leave this here...
Dominican woman says she was paid to say she had sex with U.S. senator - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/04/politics/menendez-escort-claims/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)

I'm not saying he didn't take free flights, or is scott free.., but it appears the hooker part of the story was false

I'm just going to leave this here...
Dominican woman says she was paid to say she had sex with U.S. senator - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/04/politics/menendez-escort-claims/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)

I'm not saying he didn't take free flights, or is scott free.., but it appears the hooker part of the story was false

So now you believe her?
Maybe she is being paid to say she was paid to say that he didn't pay her enough for sex . :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So now you believe her?
Maybe she is being paid to say she was paid to say that he didn't pay her enough for sex . :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, Fox believed her first, right?
Between this, the feds going looking and the lawyer on the hook too... I believe this part of the story...

He may be/is guilty of ethics violations.. I'm only referring to the hooker part here