http://www.businessinsider.com/hedge-funder-john-taylor-mitt-romney-blew-it-by-picking-ryan-and-now-hell-lose-the-election-2012-8 An elite just said government should be cut in secret, not in PUBLIC.
Mitt Romney Blew It By Picking Ryan, And Now He'll Lose The Election
By bgamall4 Follow Tue, 14 Aug 2012, 9:55am 3,643 views 47 comments
In Reno NV 89502
Watch (3) Share
Quote
Permalink Like (1) Dislike (1) « First « Previous Viewing Comments 8-47 of 47 Last » See most liked comments
|
Premium member bgamall4 is moderator of this thread. |
Follow
Befriend
4 threads
531 comments
rdm says
I think most folks over 50 know that private health insur for seniors will never be cheap. The actuarial tables are setup because for the most part, old people get sick vs young ones. Thus, regardless of the fazing in or out of the various provisions, many seniors and soon-to-be seniors will tune out Ryan's message.
Follow
Befriend (1)
248 threads
4,716 comments
Ah Gee, too bad that he didn't pick a hill billy woman as his running mate.
I was really looking forward to constructive criticism about his running mate.
Follow
Befriend (14)
753 threads
2,589 comments
63 male
Las Vegas, NV
bgamall4's website
Premium
Ruki says
But not to the extent that Ryan wants, with vouchers. He is cutting money to doctors who are doing ok. He is not making a voucher system where seniors will have to pay more and more of their health care on fixed income.
Follow
Befriend (1)
248 threads
4,716 comments
bgamall4 says
So which side of the terd is your favorite to suck on?
Follow
Befriend (16)
764 threads
7,709 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
In all my life, I have never heard any supporter of candidate X say that candidate X is anything but a shoe-in for winning the election. Of course, if candidate X were a shoe-in, there would be absolutely no purpose in stating that fact or stating that his opponent would not win. So whenever I hear Joe Public say that candidate X is going to win or candidate Y is going to lose, I reach the conclusion that Joe Public is very afraid that candidate Y is going to beat candidate X and is trying to influence the election via getting people to vote for candidate X because they believe he’s going to win.
Maybe it’s true that some people do vote for whichever candidate they think will win. Those people are idiots, of course, as it makes no sense to vote for someone just because he is going to win. It’s not a guessing contest and there is no prize for guessing right.
Of course, if you want to get the real odds on the presidential election, the place to go is a political betting site. As posted in a previous thread, these sites are highly efficient because big bucks are on the line. From Political Betting Odds, Obama has a 55% chance of winning the election. Romney 45%.
And those are the odds according to people who put their money where their mouth is and have a track record far better than any polls. So don’t listen to supporters on either side. They want to convince you that their guy is going to win because they think you’re so stupid and irrational that you will vote for whoever you think is going to win anyway. Of course, if they are right about you, then you are an idiot. You don’t want to be an idiot? Do you?
Follow
Befriend (16)
764 threads
7,709 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
The sole reason any presidential candidate picks a VP running mate is that he thinks or is told that the running mate will increase the chances he’ll get elected. That is the one and only purpose of picking a VP candidate.
So does Paul Ryan increase Romney’s chances of getting elected? Will Ryan bring Romney votes that he wouldn’t have gotten otherwise? Ryan clearly is the poster boy for the Tea Party movement, but he doesn’t appeal to non-TPers. So, would there be significant numbers of TPers that would have stayed home had Romney chosen someone else?
Personally, I think that the TPers are sure to come out just due to their intense hatred of Obama. These are people who actually believed that Obama was born in Kenya, is a secret Muslim, is a socialist, and will take away their guns. TPers are not known for having any grip on reality. However, they are foul weather voters as shown in the 2010 elections.
If the TPers were fair weather voters who would have stayed home otherwise, then Ryan would bring more voters to Romney. But I don’t see that happening as the people who like Ryan were going to vote anyway.
Still, there must have been someone in Romney’s campaign that thinks otherwise. It would be nice if we knew what his analysis was.
Follow
Befriend
4 threads
531 comments
Dan8267 says
Well, here's what's missing, the number of Americans, who're senior citizens or about to become one in ten years, is ~25% of the population. The key swing state here is Florida. Since individual health insurance plans, spike some 100+% from the ages of 40 to 55 in premiums, I can't see how Ryan is helping with the battle ground states.
In this election, no one cares for states like Massachusetts (obviously Democratic) or Oklahoma (clearly Republican). It's about getting the key middle undecided voters, in those swing states, to see the merits in the so-called vision. I don't think anyone believes that a voucher plan will help in lowering costs for senior's health insurance. And that's because everyone's had some experience in having plans cancelled on them or premiums raised because of age or loss of job.
Follow
Befriend (7)
29 threads
1,214 comments
31 male
Premium
Dan, for the umpteenth time, pinnaclesports.com. bovada is for idiots, next you'll be posting odds from someother hackneyed shop like sportsbook.com or iowaunivpoliticalbettingexchange with some silly 500 limits. Pinnacle is the most liquid wagering shop in the world. Last I saw, they had the democrat up to -174, which is a sizeable spike since announcing Ryan, from the -160 it was before
U.S. 2012 Presidential Election: Winning Party SUN 8/19 WINNING PARTY (ALL IN WAGERING) 05:00 PM 1351 Democrat 1.565
1352 Republican 2.660
http://www.pinnaclesports.com/ContestCategory/Politics/300~2A~+U~2E~S~2E~+2012+Presidential+Election/Lines.aspx
Follow
Befriend
28 threads
351 comments
Ruki says
You know what I find funny about Republicans... Is that their policies against abortion and planned parenthood eventually will be their undoing.
The more unwanted children that are born to minorities because they weren't educated properly on contraception or didn't have access to it for cheap will mean more democratic voters in the future.
I think that's why we have a Mormon republican nominee.. At least he "reproduced" enough to keep up with the minorities republicans want to keep down and stamp out.
Your comment above.. "all that matters is 2012 election".. just goes to show how SHORT SIGHTED the republican party has become.
Follow
Befriend
3 comments
bgamall4 says
I work with the libs (but am not one) working on gutting Medicare behind the scenes right now. Death by a thousand cuts. Have you talked to a Medicare patient about what portion of their hospital or doc bills they pick up today? Or a doc about how much they get reimbursed by Medicare (don't even bring up Medicaid) for taking care of chronic disease obese western-diet gorging elderly who are going to die anyway?
Anyway, the reality here is that the liberals are going to gut Medicare too. Maybe more. Obamacare's half trillion from Medicare was just the beginning. Only they'll do it behind the scenes (like this Taylor guy actually says it should be done!) with their politicians will deny it to the end.
Truth is, we just CANNOT afford (even raising taxes 3X wouldn't do it!) to continue the with the cost/beneficiary currently paid by Medicare for the baby boomers. Everyone who studies this shit know it. The politicians, the academics, the policy makers, the government workers in MedPAC, CBO, CMS, they know this.
At least Ryan wants to debate how to cut Medicare openly. Vouchers, which he advocates, will give seniors the choice to decide where to take their "benefit", shrinking though it will be.
The alternative approach, which the Dems will take, is to cut Medicare (again, a fait accompli) behind the scenes, by deciding how much to reduce payments to whom (hospitals or docs? nursing homes? home health aids?) for what type of care for which patient - it'll be a central planner's wet dream!! People are drooling over who's going to get to make those decision in our federal government right now! Starting with the IPAB members
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Payment_Advisory_Board
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,546 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Ruki says
It's clear you are going to conform to one or both of the following:
1. You have no clue how utterly idiotic this is going to look if Obama wins in November. You'll be shown up as someone who not only is totally lacking in political insight, but someone who has no problem flinging insults based on his premise that Obama will lose the election, and doesn't care if he looks like a blowhard fool if all his predictions fall apart.
2. You'll simply change your screen name for the 4th time and pretend you're someone else to avoid responsibility for what you wrote here.
#2 is guaranteed.
Follow
Befriend
44 comments
StoutFiles says
They said if I voted for Palin we'd get an idiot for Vice President. Boy were they right!
Follow
Befriend
4 threads
531 comments
Sorry Folks, but people are going to have to fly to Costa Rica, Cuba, or southeast Asia for surgical procedures down the road.
The whole purpose of some sort of Medicare blanket is so that if a senior catches pneumonia and needs immediate treatment, that at least that'll be covered for a short period of time. Yes, we know that hospital stays are expensive so it'll be outpatient within a couple of days.
And finally, I'm trying to imagine why any insurance company would want to cover a 65+ year old? Individual policies, which may have been $600/month at age 40 spike into the thousands by the time one is eligible for AARP. So how's spending now let's say $3K per month on health insurance, as a senior, is better than Medicare plus flying to Costa Rica for scheduled procedures?
Follow
Befriend
41 threads
703 comments
Monterey, CA
Call it Crazy says
Probably Ryan. Only because Joe Biden spoke at my college graduation a while back and got boo'd.
Follow
Befriend (16)
764 threads
7,709 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
errc says
I wasn't advocating one political site over the other.
However, if there is a disagreement about the odds, we should be able to exploit this by betting equal amounts on both candidates, each on the site with the less favorable odds of winning.
Anyone see why this wouldn't work?
Follow
Befriend
4 threads
239 comments
Rin says
This is the key idiocy of having private insurance involved in insuring, really anyone, but over about 50 and by 65 it is just insane. Imagine what a private policy would cost for the average 80 year old to say nothing of one in poor health. This is why medicare costs so much but a single payer system is still going to be the cheapest way to cover old people. What Ryan wants to do is shift more of that cost onto the individual and less for the government, that is how he achieves "cost savings" it is not the overall cost but the governments costs. Medicare has extremely low overhead costs and the ability to hammer on prices ( except prescription drugs). Honestly, his plan will never happen, people are dumb but they aren't that dumb.
Follow
Befriend (7)
29 threads
1,214 comments
31 male
Premium
Dan, you're not going to pull a fast one on that industry. Maybe ten years ago, before all the arbitration bots got deployed. In 2012, you're just not going to get on both sides of a trade at + money. I mean, you can if you are good at speculating line movement, and had been holding some obama tickets from -140/-150, you could sell them now and buy rmoney and be out the trade in the money
Maybe these rinky dink political sites like the iowa exchange with the 500 limits that the other guy keeps siting, or your scam site Bovada you posted, maybe you'd find disputing lines, but that shit is BIG BIG money business, you aren't outsmarting the oddsmakers at pinnacle or betfair
Regardless, you are in USA and don't know the game, so you're not betting on anything, thanks to your big gov knowing that its not good for you. PLAY THE LOTTERY TODAY. PLAY IT THIS MORNING AND TONITE. BENEFITS THE ELDERLY. Now, if you had "a friend" in canada, or any other free country that these sites are allowed to do business with, go for it. Actually, Bovada is a Calvin Eyre scam site spin off from Bodog from when they screwed over us costomers, so they'd probably take your wager. Now if you win, good luck getting paid hahahaha
Matchbook.com was the answer, and it was around last election, but your politicians luckily saved you from being able to circumvent the bookmakers and wager legitimately
Follow
Befriend (16)
764 threads
7,709 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
errc says
I think you missed the point. If any two betting sites A and B disagree on the odds of X winning over Y in any contest, then you can bet for X on one site and for Y on the other and make money off risk-free off of the degree of disagreement over the odds. If that margin is greater than the cost of placing the bet including any commission on winning, then you come out ahead.
As such, I doubt there is much disagreement in the odds on any betting site including ones that bet on the presidential elections.
Follow
Befriend (5)
168 threads
5,082 comments
iwog says
Yes, but he will still be a fairly successful troll, which might be the total extent of his goals here, and also pretty much all he has an aptitude for in these conversations.
The periodic name change is required simply because,... what fun is trolling if you're not taken seriously by at least some of the trollees ?
Follow
Befriend (7)
29 threads
1,214 comments
31 male
Premium
Dan8267 says
Didn't you read my post? There are arbitration bots that make sure that you aren't going to luckily stumble on that kind of free money. There is no vigorish on the winner, its priced into the odds (which is why xbama is -174 yetymoney is only +156)
They offer what is called 'dime' lines on baseball bets, so you'll see sf -105 and wash -105, so the book has a ten cent spread for their commission. The thing of the future, has already been rendered the thing of the past by the us gov. Betting exchanges like matchbook.com where you and I can bet against eachother, they collect their penny fee and broker the deal.
I've been gambling since before there was an internet for the government to restrict us mericans from electronically transferring funds on, so I've seen it evolve. Right now, it fucking sucks. For americans and their shitty laws, at least. The rest of the world is free to use all those wonderfully liquid markets, out in the open
Follow
Befriend (16)
764 threads
7,709 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
errc says
Ergo, these political betting sites are efficient and thus more accurate than polls.
I think you're misreading my postings. I am simply stating that one of the two following statements must be true.
1. The political betting sites must agree closely on the odds.
2. The disagreement on odds allow risk-free money to be made by hedge bets against two competing sites with significantly different odds.
You're replies seem to indicate that you believe #2 to be the true statement. I don't see how we are disagreeing about anything.
Clearly one and only one of the above statements must be true.
Follow
Befriend
229 threads
2,779 comments
tdr says
Ha Ha Ha... That's a good one!! I hadn't heard that one before!!
Follow
Befriend
4 threads
531 comments
rdm says
Yes, but isn't the purpose of having Ryan around ... is to help win the election?
How does one win an election, talking about alienating the needs of nearly 25% of the population, the ones aged 55 and above, esp considering that the AARP vote in Florida is key to winning the largest bloc of the swing states' electoral pool.
Follow
Befriend (14)
753 threads
2,589 comments
63 male
Las Vegas, NV
bgamall4's website
Premium
CaptainShuddup says
Dan8267 says
But if they lose their medicare and get a voucher at age 52, that would just suck. They are voting against themselves.
Follow
Befriend (4)
28 threads
776 comments
In all due respect until about 22 or so years ago the VP didn't mean a damn thing.
We went from Dan Quayle who was mocked in not being able to spell potato right...to Al Gore that claimed he made the internet..to dick cheney who many argue egged on the war in Iraq.
biden doesn't add ANYTHING to Obama. I find it odd that anyone from Deleware would be picked given it makes the Caymen Islands look like Massachusetts when it comes to taxes!
Ryan was picked because he's the anti Palin. He knows his stuff and hasn't (yet) screwed up talking about anything. For months now Romney was slammed for not having plans on anything. BOOM! There it is. Ryan was actually congratulated by Bill Clinton of all people on the plan he created and said that he can call him up. How the hell can the democrats go against that at this point? I'm sorry but they just can't.
The AARP might be a voting block but it's also a shrinking voting block. As baby boomers age the future generations are smaller.
There might be a real division of older people pretty soon. Everyone knows if you raise social security ages it hurts politically. But the costs of those increases as they get older.
Life expectancy for most people is around 80 years in the USA. So if they start to make cuts on those above the age of 80 or certainly above 90 then where's the backlash? What if medicare turned into simply a 20-25 year program rather than one that goes on for decades with no end in sight? If there are no limits what will happen if life expectancy reaches 100 meaning that you spend 1/3rd of your life receiving benefits? Factor in lower amounts of immigration, lower birth rates and a delayed entry point to the labor market due to education and the economy and this simply needs to be changed.
When social security was created life expectancy was 65. So no one anticipated tens of millions of people on it at the same time. It was inspired by the plans in Germany in the 1880's and it was 45, meaning it was to act as an incentive to live.
If we indexed social security to where it was in the 1930's it would kick in at age 79. If we went back to the German concept it would be at 99!
Follow
Befriend (14)
753 threads
2,589 comments
63 male
Las Vegas, NV
bgamall4's website
Premium
mdovell says
Yes they can. He wants another housing bubble. If Clinton wants one tough crap. He isn't a true Democrat. Ryan wants to cut medicare, give the money to the rich, who will invest in hedge funds and take over even more real estate than they already are. Their aim is to securitize the rents in CDO's.
And even if they don't succeed at that they want to drive real estate up, the 1 percent hedge funds, I mean, so that the banks can unload them without losing money. They dont give a damn about main street.
So far the Dems have not gone all in on this but Ryan will.
Follow
Befriend (7)
29 threads
1,214 comments
31 male
Premium
bgamall4 says
Yea! What a bunch of idiots! Don't they know this is America? Vote for whomever claims to gift you the most goodies. Fuck all to who/what/where/when/how they come from. They're old, they deserve it.
Yous weren't kidding when you used to say, that the children are the future. Future slaves to all your social programs, you hopped-up-on-sugar consumermonsters
Only a baby boomer. Strategic defaults, and "free" "health" "care", the leftist wet dream
Follow
Befriend (14)
753 threads
2,589 comments
63 male
Las Vegas, NV
bgamall4's website
Premium
mdovell says
Tell me you aren't serious.
Follow
Befriend
4 threads
531 comments
mdovell says
Ok, which election are you talking about? We're talking about 2012 election, not 2032.
Romney needs to win Florida, hands down, to be able to get the swing votes.
Right now, here's the US census ...
http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn147.html
Ages 45-64 is now 81M+ and over 65 is 40M+. That's a huge demographic and many will not be able to afford a practical health insurance policy with premiums in the thousands per month per individual, once they're cut off from their corporate benefits circa age 65.
Follow
Befriend (4)
334 threads
919 comments
I'll bet that Ann Coulter never saw Paul Ryan coming.
Follow
Befriend
3 comments
Medicare is headed to bankruptcy as things stand. The only way to save it is to revise the Medicare statute and allow balance billing, which is the way the program worked before 1986. At least then, doctors can price to the market, instead of being forced against price caps, and patients can decide whether paying extra is worth the money to them. Really, it is no different than the way the program works now for medications. If we don't allow this, the program will fail, and it will fail very quickly if the Congress doesn't put an end to the automatically-programmed across-the-board rate cuts which now threaten 30% cuts on all Medicare payments. If that ever happens, Medicare is done.
Follow
Befriend
4 threads
531 comments
beetles says
There are no successful domestic programs as of now. In the future, Medicare will be that one line of defense for an older person to get treatment for pneumonia. Thus, it'll serve in that limited capacity versus let's say a 70 year old paying $3K per month for an insurance premium to get the ability to enter a hospital.
Other than that, medical tourism to Costa Rica, Thailand, and other nations will be the way most persons will afford hip replacements, heart values, etc, along with importing generic drugs from other nations. This is happening now and won't stop any time soon.
The US will offer third world medical services to the average person w/o a corporate sponsor, 2nd world services to a worker bee, and 1st world services to the media stars, investment bankers, and owners.
Follow
Befriend
3 comments
Life expectancy was barely above 60 when social security was created in the 1930s. Life expectancy was about 72 years when Medicare was created in 1965. At its inception,the variety of services available was a fraction of what is available today. Had the program been maintained as one that covered the final seven years of the average beneficiary's life, the age of eligibility would be around 73 years today. The average beneficiary enjoys twice the number of years of coverage and a vastly greater number of covered services than did the first cohort to enter the Medicare program. but instead of having eleven working and tax-paying citizens supporting that early beneficiary, there are only five working and taxpaying people supporting the program, and by 2025, there will be as few as three.
You can see that unless something is done to reduce consumption, and not just "cut costs" by cutting payments, this will all come to a bad end.
Follow
Befriend
4 threads
531 comments
beetles says
Here's how it works ... a heart value replacement runs about ~$160K in the US. Right now, Medicare covers 80%; that leaves ~$32K for the senior citizen to pay out of pocket.
Now, fly to Thailand and a heart value replacement cost drops to ~$12K. Well, that's under 38% of the out of pocket in the US, nevermind the total cost.
Then, if you look at private senior citizen insurance premiums, which will be $3K/month x 12 months, or $36K. Well ... it tells me that keeping Medicare for the basic hospital services still works out, because in the end, medical tourism will fill in the health care gap without forcing everyone in a particular age bracket, to liquidate their 401K or reverse mortgage their primary home to pay for the monthly premiums.
Follow
Befriend (16)
764 threads
7,709 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
bgamall4 says
They do that all the time.
Follow
Befriend (1)
248 threads
4,716 comments
mdovell says
Again another myth, it's actually STILL a special thing to be alive past 62 in any time. It's still an exclusive club, Steve Jobs certainly wont be getting his SS benefits.
Death has come to at least 20 people I know of in the last 2 years, and not one of them were over 55.
People believe the statement that you said, because it sounds smart and no one challenges it. It's like 3 out of 5 people are Obese, it sounds so cool coming from people you would think have first hand knowledge, but they are regurgitating what was pulled out of a Donkey's asshole.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,546 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
CaptainShuddup says
It's an exclusive club that 83.2% of all living men will achieve. The average life expectancy of a 62 year old is almost 20 years.
This is odd, even for you.
Follow
Befriend (4)
2 threads
787 comments
http://therainbowpost.com/2012/07/27/scottish-church-says-gays-life-span-is-20-years-shorter-than-straights/
Life is full of choices. You reap what you sow....
CaptainShuddup says
Follow
Befriend (3)
38 threads
801 comments
San Francisco, CA
xrpb11a says
Did you read that article? I'm not sure it says what you think it says. Here's a quote:
"This is a new low but also shows bow irrelevant the church has really become in a modern society, they are so out of touch it defies understanding of a sane mind. Remember this is the same church that voted to keep slavery, that denies that women are equal to men and condone to child abuse."
Follow
Befriend (4)
2 threads
787 comments
No, i did not read it....
i thought the headline was pertinent to the quote....
FunTime says