Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 985439)

nm

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 985446)

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.

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND (Post 985453)

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....

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND (Post 985453)

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....

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 985448)

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:

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 985467)

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.

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 985476)

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.

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 985476)

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

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 985479)

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?

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 985480)

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.

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 985486)

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.

Originally Posted by justplugit (Post 986080)

"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.

Originally Posted by justplugit (Post 986512)

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.

Originally Posted by justplugit (Post 986565)

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.

Originally Posted by JohnnyD (Post 986574)

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

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 986600)

John,

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

Thanks

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 986603)

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.
.

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 986603)

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.

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 986611)

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).

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 986611)

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.

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 986611)

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).

Originally Posted by JohnnyD (Post 986621)

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.

.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 986629)

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.

Originally Posted by JohnnyD (Post 986574)

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.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 986629)

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.

Originally Posted by justplugit (Post 986660)

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?

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY (Post 986616)

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

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 986606)

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.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 986628)

"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.

Originally Posted by JohnnyD (Post 986621)

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.

Originally Posted by JohnnyD (Post 986643)

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.

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 986692)

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.