patrick.net

tatupu70 says

AverageBear says

The one big flaw that the MSM won't tell you about Obamacare: it depends on a ton of healthy young people to overpay for health insurance, with that money transferred to old, poor people and illegals.

That's how all health insurance works.

You'd prefer that all old people be unable to get insurance? Kill them off, right?

No, they should peacefully pass away on the treadmill as their strive for target heart rate 160. Only then will they be able to say that they have truly lived.

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Comptroller says

FEMA just took in a secret order for 100 million pitch forks for Islamofashust Death Panels that Michelle is training to run through old people, the sick and White People generally.

Heil!

edvard2 says

The products being peddled to them on these shows very much gives you an answer of just how "enlightened" these eager listeners and viewers are to believe anything they're told.

Ha! I watched Fox this weekend and they advertised these:

http://www.ordercatsmeow.com/?tag=im|sm|go|gn&a_aid=011

I thought it was apt, ya know, for Fox Viewers.

edvard2 says

Exactly. Because "MSM" is simply another way of saying "The liberal media!!"

No. No it is not. Another meaning for some of us is "corporate controlled
media".
Which corporation does insightful, unbiased reporting and sells you your "truth"?

I just ran into a pithy quote regarding "main stream media" on Yves Smith's site:

"As a policymaker in DC, I see first-hand the malevolence and self-delusion of our financial elites. And in case it’s not 100% clear, they are coming to steal everything you have. You won’t see this on MSNBC or Fox News. It’s not going to show up in the pages of the New York Times, which when not in hock to foreign billionaires is pushing foreign wars and smearing dissidents. The Saudi-funded Clintons aren’t interested in having you know, and neither is Stephanie Cutter, David Axelrod, or the corrupt Obama consulting class. But knowing matters. When the public learns the truth, what is possible among the elites changes. The elites don’t become any less rapacious, but they are constrained in what they can do."

A friend of a friend's best friends' girlfriend, heard that Obama is planning to give Arizona and Texas back to Mexico. America citizens there will be subjected to experimental SLEEP GAS so agents can steal all their guns & gold bullion while they are unconscious. When they wake up, they'll be Mexicans! Then they can just TRY to sneak across the border into the REAL USA and get jobs washing dishes or stealing cars.

Only source for true facts is from the Conservative media.
IRAQ HAS WMD.

HEY YOU says

Only source for true facts is from the Conservative media.

IRAQ HAS WMD.

Benghazi biggest scandal in American history!

Romney coasts to victory!

Call it Crazy says

Vicente says

A friend of a friend's best friends' girlfriend, heard that Obama is planning to give Arizona and Texas back to Mexico.

Does that mean, according to how Obama counts the states, that we will be down to 55 states??

Yeah thats right, Kenya is the 55th state.

AverageBear says

MSM eats up a story on an Obamacare online signup 'success' last week. Only problem is, Chad Henderson is an Obot (Obama volunteer for 'Organizing for Action' group). OOPSIE! Worst still, he's full of shit, along w/ his dad. But that never stops the MSM from 'fluffing' Obama....

That's funny, 'cuz zyzzyx already posted this on Friday, as an ANTI-Obamacare story, and the Fox News junkies here were ALL OVER that. Gsr was the one who pointed out it was fake.

http://patrick.net/?p=1230284

Yeah, that media sure has a liberal bias... except when they don't.

Vaticanus says

Obamacare is just another tax on the working class rather than the elites like you.

Except it's a tax on the wealthy and medical device manufacturers, and a subsidy for the perpetual underclass.

CL says

Except it's a tax on the wealthy and medical device manufacturers, and a subsidy for the perpetual underclass.

I wouldn't consider a young person making $46,000 a year where annual rent totals $30,000 on a one bedroom apartment wealthy, although such a person now must pay at least 1/3 what's charged to the old and decrepit with no government assistance

drew_eckhardt says

I wouldn't consider a young person making $46,000 a year where annual rent totals $30,000 on a one bedroom apartment, although such a person now must pay at least 1/3 what's charged to the old and decrepit with no government assistance

Waaaah! I want old people to die so I can have my $2500/month apartment. Nice.

Homeboy says

drew_eckhardt says

I wouldn't consider a young person making $46,000 a year where annual rent totals $30,000 on a one bedroom apartment, although such a person now must pay at least 1/3 what's charged to the old and decrepit with no government assistance

Waaaah! I want old people to die so I can have my $2500/month apartment. Nice.

My main point here is that Obama Care is not just a tax on the wealthy. Young adults who can't afford their own one-bedroom apartments are both too "wealthy" for Obama care subsidies and are required to pay more for their health insurance so that 50 something baby boomers at the peak of their earning potential can pay less.

Tangentially ACA doesn't take into account geographic differences in the costs of living. $429 a month left over after taxes and rent is a lot poorer than $2627 someplace like Washington state with $500 a month in rent (I calculate $4954 in Federal taxes, $2852 in Social Security, $1919 in California taxes, $667 in Medicare, and $460 in CA SDI)

We have not for profit health insurance for old people paid for with a progressive tax, and could easily have expanded Medicare to cover the slightly less old people having problems. For profit health care companies like the PhRMA members wouldn't have done as well but the government should be placing their desires behind young peoples' needs.

drew_eckhardt says

Tangentially ACA doesn't take into account geographic differences in the costs of living. $429 a month left over after taxes and rent is a lot poorer than $2627 someplace like Washington state with $500 a month in rent (I calculate 4954 in Federal taxes, $2852 in Social Security, $1919 in California taxes, $667 in Medicare, and $460 in CA SDI)

Of course not. It would be ridiculous if it did. You think the government should subsidize folks that want to live in expensive housing??

Call it Crazy says

What was the First Time home buyers credit a few years ago??

What did that $8K do??

As I recall, it didn't differentiate based on the cost of the house. So, it wasn't the same at all.

tatupu70 says

drew_eckhardt says

Tangentially ACA doesn't take into account geographic differences in the costs of living. $429 a month left over after taxes and rent is a lot poorer than $2627 someplace like Washington state with $500 a month in rent (I calculate 4954 in Federal taxes, $2852 in Social Security, $1919 in California taxes, $667 in Medicare, and $460 in CA SDI)

Of course not. It would be ridiculous if it did. You think the government should subsidize folks that want to live in expensive housing??

Yes because those homes are expensive due to being near relatively well paying jobs which make their residents less likely to be part of the 43% paying no income tax. It's also consistent with other quasi-governmental policy like $729,750 FHA home loan limits in the SF Bay Area versus $417,00 for fly-over country.

In places like Detroit a lack of jobs has allowed house prices to drop into used car territory, although without jobs it doesn't matter for people who've yet to retire. Half the median income and three times the poverty rate compared to the nation as a whole also means less tax revenue and more spending.

drew_eckhardt says

My main point here is that Obama Care is not just a tax on the wealthy. Young adults who can't afford their own one-bedroom apartments are both too "wealthy" for Obama care subsidies and are required to pay more for their health insurance so that 50 something baby boomers at the peak of their earning potential can pay less.

I call bullshit on not being able to afford a one bedroom apartment on $46,000 a year.

Homeboy says

drew_eckhardt says

My main point here is that Obama Care is not just a tax on the wealthy. Young adults who can't afford their own one-bedroom apartments are both too "wealthy" for Obama care subsidies and are required to pay more for their health insurance so that 50 something baby boomers at the peak of their earning potential can pay less.

I call bullshit on not being able to afford a one bedroom apartment on $46,000 a year.

$46K gross is $35K net in California for a single person taking standard deductions. Average rent on San Francisco one bedroom apartments is $2800/month. $35K - (2800 * 12) is $1400 a year or $116/month for food, transportation, and health insurance. That sort of arithmetic just doesn't work in expensive urban areas with lots of jobs.

People can work around that by living in high-crime neighborhoods which have half the average rent because they're not yet gentrified. They can live in their car literally or figuratively because they're spending hours commuting. They can get creative with flatmates with illegal basement bedrooms and pup tents in the living room. None of those things really fit the spirit of "living in a one bedroom apartment" with implied safety, average commute time, and privacy like a normal lower middle class working person.

Given a more realistic budget saving 15% of gross to retire someday without taking a drop in standard of living, health insurance, car insurance or other transportation costs and it still doesn't work too well with substantially lower (but still realistic) rent as in my working class silicon-valley neighborhood (office parks, mobile home communities, houses with the owners' landscaping service trucks parked out front) where a more reasonable $2000 gets you such an apartment.

Lots of kids in their late 20s and early 30s only live middle-class-ish lifestyles because their parents still help pay for rent, health insurance, car insurance, and/or student loans even when they're working in jobs which require college degrees in their major.

drew_eckhardt says

$46K gross is $35K net in California for a single person taking standard deductions. Average rent on San Francisco one bedroom apartments is $2800/month. $35K - (2800 * 12) is $1400 a year or $116/month for food, transportation, and health insurance. That sort of arithmetic just doesn't work in expensive urban areas with lots of jobs.

Then don't live in San Francisco. Duh.

drew_eckhardt says

People can work around that by living in high-crime neighborhoods which have half the average rent because they're not yet gentrified. They can live in their car literally or figuratively because they're spending hours commuting.

Sure, the ONLY choices are: Live IN San Francisco, live in a high-crime neighborhood, or live in your car. There are no other places to live in the Bay Area. Wow, I didn't know it was possible to actually be that out of touch.

CL says

Vaticanus says

Obamacare is just another tax on the working class rather than the elites like you.

Except it's a tax on the wealthy and medical device manufacturers, and a subsidy for the perpetual underclass.

If so why are young and healthy required to buy insurance they don't want? And who is really subsiding who?

Hint the people who want more of other people's money just lobbied to pass a law forcing the defenseless to give it to the powerful or pay a fine for not doing so. The defenseless are the young and healthy and the powerful are big insurance.

sbh says

Vaticanus says

If so why are young and healthy required to buy insurance they don't want?

Ask the conservatives who originally thought up the idea, you ignorant child.

That's an oxymoron you arrogant prick. It weren't conservatives who wrote these plans, unless you call Romney a conservative which is of course proof of how that description has been redefined and turned on its head. If Romney is a conservative so is Ralph Nader.

Heritage foundation is bought and paid for. Not conservative either and why are you such a smug arrogant prick. Didn't to mama teach you any manners? Probably not no wonder Dems have to force people to buy health insurance. Couldn't persuade anyone to do anything without threat of taxation cause their attitude is so arrogant and condescending.

Vaticanus says

If so why are young and healthy required to buy insurance they don't want?

Probably the same reason safe drivers are required to buy liability insurance they don't want.

freak80 says

Vaticanus says

If so why are young and healthy required to buy insurance they don't want?

Probably the same reason safe drivers are required to buy liability insurance they don't want.

So then let us buy liability insurance, rather then force us to pay 300 per month for comprehensive coverage on our 300$ clunkers

The dollars just don't make sense. I've done the math, and its a complete waste. That's what people like me don't like about being forced to buy overpriced PRIVATE health insurance from an evil PRIVATE corporation some of us enjoy the freedom of choice. Some of yous root on the descent into fascism, which is exactly what forcing citizens to buy a product/service from a private corporation, is.

I know its a tough question, so your fascist pro aca ilk won't bother to answer, but it doesn't change the fact that its beyond absurd

errc says

That's what people like me don't like about being forced to buy overpriced PRIVATE health insurance from an evil PRIVATE corporation some of us enjoy the
freedom of choice. Some of yous root on the descent into fascism, which is exactly what forcing citizens to buy a product/service from a private corporation, is.

I don't think health care should involve private insurance companies at all. It should be a national healthcare system like they have in the UK.

Unfortunately, that's evil and socialist, or something like that. So that's not even on the table.