Obamacare Sign Ups Hit 8 Million, Demographic Mix Falls Short of Target

Whitehouse.govWhitehouse.govPresident Obama took another victory lap celebrating his health care law today, announcing at an afternoon press conference that 8 million people had signed up for health coverage through the law’s insurance exchanges. Obama also hammered Republicans for refusing to work with him on making needed changes to the law. The message was clear, if not exactly cogent: Obamacare is working, and the problem with the GOP is that they won’t help him fix it.

It’s the latest in Obamacare victory celebrations from the White House, which has taken an increasingly confident tone regarding the law in the last few weeks as sign-ups unexpectedly surged at the very end of the first open-enrollment period. I say “unexpectedly” because while the administration’s own projections did foresee some increased activity in the last month, they did not anticipate the size of the spike that ended up occurring. Via Vox, here are the White House’s month-to-month projections compared with actual sign-ups.

Vox.comVox.com

The White House’s recent declarations that Obamacare is now a success have rested heavily (though not exclusively) on a single figure: the total number of sign-ups recorded. That number, of course, still doesn’t tell us how many people are actually enrolled, since enrollments must be paid and 15-20 percent of people who sign-up are reportedly not paying their first month’s premium (although even with a 20 percent reduction it still results in about 6.4 million enrollments). Nor does it tell us how many enrollments were previously uninsured.

Whitehouse.govWhitehouse.govNor does the 8 million sign-ups statistic tell us the answer to what is arguably the most important figure of all: the demographic mix of sign-ups. I say arguably because, while some may differ, that is in fact what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney argued just four months ago.

"Whatever the total figure is of people who enroll by March 31st, the aggregate number," he said in early January, "the total number is not as important as the overall makeup that you see in that population."

Carney’s statement came in response to a question about how many sign-ups were between the ages of 18 and 34, a demographic of younger and presumably healthier plan beneficiaries whose participation has been considered critical to the success of the law: The administration’s goal, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, was for 39 percent of the final tally to be between the ages of 18 and 34. The “worst-case scenario,” according to a Kaiser Foundation analysis cited by the administration was if only 25 percent of the final tally was in that age cohort.

As it turns out, we do have information about sign-ups in that age group, and the demographic mix is much closer to the worst-case scenario than it is to the administration’s target. About 28 percent of the sign-ups in the federal exchanges are between the ages of 18 and 34, according to a White House fact sheet. If, as Carney said in January, that number is much more important than the total number of sign-ups, then that’s probably a bad sign for Obamacare. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Jay Carney: No timetable for releasing information about Obamacare sign-ups
    White House spokesman Jay Carney said he doesn't know when the administration plans to release more information about the 7.5 million Americans who signed up for Obamacare on the federal exchanges by the March 31 deadline.

    The Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services “are working to crunch the numbers and assess the data and collect it in a way that provides as much information as possible,” he said Monday during his daily briefing with reporters.

    “I don't have a timetable for when that would happen,” he added....

  • creech||

    November 5th seems about right.

  • TallDave||

    Nov 5th, 2043.

  • Sevo||

    "The Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services “are working to crunch the numbers and assess the data and collect it in a way that provides as much information as possible,” he said"

    Translated:
    'We will release it as soon as we figure out the best way to paper over the bad news.'

  • Acosmist||

    Only 22 million to go!

  • Juice||

    Or 32. Or 37. Or 42. It all depends on which bullshit number you go by.

  • John Thacker||

    It would be nice if he or other Democrats would mention what these "needed fixes" are. Several of the "fixes" that he's pushed through via executive order, he's threatened to veto House bills passed that would affirm what he did. He's also signed several bipartisan bills altering or repealing individual sections.

  • fish_remote||

    It would be nice if he or other Democrats would mention what these "needed fixes" are.

    Jesus Christ John.....they still need to desperately shore up the "Positive Legacy" Portion of the law...you know...where Obama winds up looking statesmanlike and not a useless Chicago machine party hack!

  • Rich||

    About 28 percent of the sign-ups are between the ages of 18 and 34, according to a White House fact sheet.

    So, about 14 percent, then?

    Seriously, does "sign-up" have a strict technical meaning?

  • fish_remote||

    Seriously, does "sign-up" have a strict technical meaning?

    Whatever allows them to keep flogging it for political gain.

  • Peter Suderman||

    No, that's wrong.

    According to the White House fact sheet released this afternoon, 28 percent of sign-ups are between 18 and 34.

    35 percent are below 35, but that includes children, who are not part of the critical young/healthy age demo the WH had targeted.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    I think Rich's point is that the O Admin is lying and you're a, ahem, "Reason Editor" for believing it.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    And you believe 'Hot Air' - a right-wing nutjob site you linked below.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Peter Caca,

    And you believe 'Hot Air' - a right-wing nutjob site you linked below.


    Any site that is not Caca-certified or agrees with Caca, is ipso facto a "right-wing nutjob" site. Because that is how the world works now.

  • politicsbyothermeans||

    I will also link to a right-wing nutjob site: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/....._hp_ref=tw

  • Hydra||

    You also failed to note that many of those signups are for Medicaid, not private sector health insurance.

  • TallDave||

    That an important point, Medicaid signups do nothing for the death spiral.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    About 28 percent of the sign-ups are between the ages of 18 and 34, according to a White House fact sheet

    It is now up to 35%.

    The DOOM! crowd is not so loud these days.

  • fish_remote||

    It is now up to 35%.

    That high huh? I heard it was only around 8%.

    PS:NEEDSMUCHMOARCHRISTFAG!

  • Rich||

    The 8% may be the *pay*-ups.

  • fish_remote||

    Nahhh...the 8% is for shreeky....it's a very important and powerful number to him.

  • WhatAboutBob||

    You are wrong and/or dishonest again PB. Obama said 35% are under 35 years of age, that's not the same as between 18 and 35.

    http://dailycaller.com/2014/04.....-under-35/

  • Jordan||

    PWND

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    "18 to 34".

    Obama threw another year on that Carney did not have.

    Still, the REPEAL crowd has just about shot their wad.

  • Jordan||

    That additional year does not bring the total up to 35%. He is counting people younger than 18.

  • OneOut||

    What percentage of the "18 to 34" crowd needed to make it workable are members of the 15 to 20 percent crowd who didn't pay after their "sign up ?

    I would suspect that a higher percent of people who didn't follow through with payment are the younger, more necessary, group.

    If 75% of the 18 to 34 group doesn't pay that doesn't bode well for the ones who did pay premiums next year.

    Time will tell.

  • politicsbyothermeans||

    For argument's sake, let's say it is 35%. I'm sure you'll immediately start agitating for the Emperor to cancel all delays and get the ACA back on track, yes?

  • ||

    WhatAboutBob, Dailycaller? Not Caca certified.

  • Paul.||

    The DOOM! crowd is not so loud these days.

    Uhm, there's nothing in the numbers of signed up that speaks to the actual effectiveness of the law and how badly it will hose healthcare-- I mean, once Obama quits delaying the law he demanded.

  • Swiss Servator, Versicherung!||

    I distinctly remember the proggies flogging a figure of "40 million uninsured" - now that got fixed by 40 million signed up and paid policies, yes? I mean, they would never exaggerate/lie to get this important piece of freedom imposed on us, would they?!

  • Acosmist||

    8 out of 30 million? That's an ADMISSION that this thing is doomed. Obama trotted out the "30 million uninsured" number, so it seems fair to make him eat it when 8/30 are actually signed up.

    And yes, I'm aware that it's actually less than 8 million because you have to back out those who lost their coverage, but hey, even pretending it's really 8 million, that's barely more than a quarter of the target! Amazing!

    I accept the administration's admission of failure.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    8 million on the private insurer exchanges + 3 million under 26 + 4 million on Medicaid expansion = 15 million.

    Since 12 million illegals are ineligible the uninsured citizen rate is expected to fall to low single digit millions by 2016.

    It's a messy law but it is Wingnut Proof now. Sorry for you guys.

  • Jordan||

    - X million who lost their existing insurance

  • Thea||

    I'm one of those. 12 year customer with the same plan that I liked. Gone. New 'comparable' plan? Co-pays higher by 17%, monthly premium up by 43%; annual out of pocket up by 329%. Gotta say, no matter what happens, this pile of crap has ruined my health insurance.

  • Brandon||

    Well that's because you're old priveleged and white. Your cadillac plan was ruining this country and Obama just made you pay your fair share, you kulak.

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    He was also healthy, a grave sin it would appear.

  • Pulseguy||

    Thea, Thea, Thea....you don't get it. 1. It is intentions that count. 2. It is how you spin it. 3. Your old plan, the one you liked, it wasn't good enough for you.

    They made you give away your old car, the one that was really good, and buy a heavily subsidized electric car made by GM, which doesn't run well. But, ideologically? It is very good.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Peter Caca,

    Since 12 million illegals are ineligible the uninsured citizen rate is expected to fall to low single digit millions by 2016.


    But we will never know now that the Census Bureau decided to change their questionnaire. Isn't that wonderful?

    It's a messy law but it is Wingnut Proof now.


    Maybe. It's not actuary proof, though. Or economics proof. Or even voter proof. But it is Caca-invented bugaboo proof, for sure.

  • OneOut||

    Old Mex

    Are you saying tha Buttplug is Peter suderman ?

    I relatively new here.

  • dinkster||

    Fairly sure he is calling him a shit dick.

  • Brian||

    And I remember back when the administration told us that success really wasn't about the total signups. You know: back when the numbers were bad.

    Of course, now that the numbers are good, we can declare success because of the total signups.

    In other words: no matter what happens, it's a success, just for doing whatever it does.

    Sigh.

  • sloopyinca||

    It's the fucking Global Warming gambit.

    Heads I win, tails you lose.

  • Hydra||

    These numbers aren't good. If they'd said only 8 million people would get health insurance because of Obamacare back in 2009 it never would have passed.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    3 years ago CBO projected a net decrease of 21million uninsured in 2014. Now it's 12million. It was supposed to reduce the uninsured by 34million by 2020. Now it caps at 26million in 2017 (2 years later than originally planned). 3 years ago CBO projected a reduction in worked hours equivalent to 800,000 FTE. Now it's 2.5million.

    Fucking AWESOME!!!

  • exchef100||

    Cry victory! Medicaid rolls expanded by millions! Success!

  • Carolynp||

    Actually sweetpea, it is already gone. Painful, right? I can almost see the stompy tantrums of the lefties, and it is amusing. Say bye bye to the senate sweetheart.

  • Peter Suderman||

    No, that's wrong.

    According to the White House fact sheet released this afternoon, 28 percent of sign-ups are between 18 and 34.

    35 percent are below 35, but that includes children, who are not part of the critical young/healthy age demo the WH had targeted.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Again, only a Reason Editor would take their word for that.

    Statistics were just as much a fantasy in their original version as in their rectified version. A great deal of the time you were expected to make them up out of your head. For example, the Ministry of Plenty’s forecast had estimated the output of boots for the quarter at 145 million pairs. The actual output was given as sixty-two millions. Winston, however, in rewriting the forecast, marked the figure down to fifty-seven millions, so as to allow for the usual claim that the quota had been overfulfilled. In any case, sixty-two millions was no nearer the truth than fifty-seven millions, or than 145 millions. Very likely no boots had been produced at all. Likelier still, nobody knew how many had been produced, much less cared.
    -- George Orwell, 1984

  • ||

    ^This.

    This steaming pile of shit will never work and was never meant to. It is an assault on liberty (force people to engage in commerce) and an effort to divert a huge portion of revenue through government channels.

    Obama does not care if it works, only that he can lull people into accepting it long enough to achieve the ends mentioned above.

    I have to say, anyone who thinks this is about improving healthcare, reducing costs etc., who believes the architects of it have a genuine concern for the welfare of the citizenry, is dangerously naive.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Yes, Peter, "under 35" is clever spin.

  • Juice||

    Why bother with the 18-34 demographic at all? Because those are the younger, healthier (and poorer) suckers who were supposed to pay in and shore up the system. So counting people who are under 18 is disingenuous at best. You can call it spin, but it's really just plain lying.

  • Carolynp||

    So, you are really too dense to understand what he is saying? Or is this your clever attempt at being funny?

  • Carolynp||

    I just wonder at why anyone believes the White House fact sheet. Is there any independent confirmation of their numbers? Because, their numbers sound imaginary altogether.

  • anon||

    It's impossible to confirm numbers that are entirely made up and based off of entirely fabricated metrics.

  • Hydra||

    White House fact sheet

    Now there's an oxymoron.

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    It puts the lotion on its skin

  • Carolynp||

    Because they've already won the argument. A study out today shows that 61 percent of Americans think Obama's lying. Just that simple kiddo.

  • Hydra||

    All that tells me is that 39% of Americans are idiots.

  • Pulseguy||

    Not true. At least according to the White House. And, you're right, you can't believe anything they say.

    They said yesterday the 35% includes children on their parents plans. It does not include young singles, which has always been the critical target market. That number according to the WH is 28%, which means it is something less than that.

  • TallDave||

    THEN:

    If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period.

    If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period.

    NOW

    Obamacare will not be repealed. Period.

  • Swiss Servator, Versicherung!||

    THIS IS THE GREATEST EXPANSION OF THE FREE MARKET EVAH!!!!!!

    /derp

  • GILMORE||

    IT IS GOOD IT IS BECAUSE REPUBLICANS HATE IT AND IF ITS BAD ITS JUST A STEPPING STONE TO UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE BECAUSE ROMNEY DID IT TOO AND ALSO WOMEN'S BODIES ARE NOT TO BE HELD HOSTAGE BECAUSE BIRTH CONTROL IS FREEDOM AND RIGHTS

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Via Vox, here are the White House’s month-to-month projections compared with actual sign-ups.

    And the Mar-Apr numbers are believable because.......

    RAND study: By our estimate, 3.9 million people signed up for ObamaCare, not 7.1 million like the White House says
    ...A caveat right off the bat: RAND’s estimate only runs through March 28 whereas the actual deadline for signing up was March 31st. Given the crush of traffic on Healthcare.gov in late March, many more people could have signed up over those last three days than were captured by these numbers. On the other hand, the White House was claiming six million sign-ups as of March 27. There’s no way to reconcile that with RAND’s data....

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I can't find that quote from Rand anywhere.

  • Agammamon||

    RAND, not Rand. Idiot.

  • Snap and Crackle, no Pop||

    Seriously, there's a link to the PDF right in the article.

  • Michael||

    Wow, your stupidity never ceases to amaze.

  • Carolynp||

    Look, they just did a study that shows that 52 percent of liberals don't know the Earth revolves around the sun. He's pretty par for the course liberal stupid, imho.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    God, you are breathtakingly stupid. If you're going to pretend to be some sort of healthcare wonk, act like you've been there: the RAND Institute is a big, big name in healthcare studies.

  • KennethJohnKelly||

    The RAND sample filled out an internet survey anytime between March 1 and March 28 - and they were paid for it, so they probably skewed earlier rather than later.
    This is also the same poll that estimated a jump of 8m in employer-sponsored insurance between Sept and March, which is fantastically unlikely.

  • ChrisN||

    You gotcha free speech zone over heeah, ya free-market health-insurance zone over heaah...

    What more ya filthy mugs want?

  • GILMORE||

    THATS 8 MILLION PEOPLE WHO WOULD HAVE BEEN LEPERS IN THE STREETS AND BABIES WITH AIDS WHILE THE KOCHS LAUGHED AND THE INSURANCE COMPANIES AND THE REPUBLICANS CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING AND MIRACLES LIKE THIS HAVENT HAPPENED SINCE OBAMA CREATO-SAVED 100MILLION JOBS AND MADE THE WARS END AND THE ECONOMY STRONGER BECAUSE ROADS AND SCHOOLS THAT NOBODY BUILT YAY VOTE HILARY!

  • Almanian!||

    Herc?

  • Sudden||

    needs moar bracketz

  • Charlotte Falcon||

    Why the big increase in sign-ups in March and April. Can this be reasonably explained?

  • Rich||

    "The revamped Healthcare.gov and improved Exchanges are working smoothly in conjunction with our cadre of dedicated expert Navigators."

  • Charlotte Falcon||

    Why didn't enrollment ramp up in January and February? The website wasn't working until March?

  • Agammamon||

    Pretty much.

    Oh and tax returns.

  • Ann N||

    i thought penaltax on the brain. not in effect, but in the consciousness.

  • pan fried wylie||

    I think it fits my Procrastination Curve theory nicely.

    link

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    If you are making up the numbers does it really matter which month ?

  • ||

    "Can this be reasonably explained?"

    They are lying their asses off. Is that a reasonable explanation?

  • Carolynp||

    Sure, they lied. End of explanation.

  • OneOut||

    Charlotte Falcon|4.17.14 @ 6:07PM|#

    Why the big increase in sign-ups in March and April. Can this be reasonably explained?

    Well the government held a gun to people's heads and demanded that they sign up for this no later than March.

    The people put it off until the last minute because they didn't like what they were being forced to do.

    If the sign up had been for a free car then people would have signed up sooner.

  • Charlotte Falcon||

    I am seriously confused. So people are only signing up because they have to? How is that success? The law was supposed to offer a product with a high demand at an affordable price. To me that would make it a no-brainer that people would sign up as soon as possible, not as late as they could get away with.

    Another questions: I thought there were 40-some million uninsured. The numbers, to be honest, are confusing, but a recent RAND study showed that nine million plus new people have insurance in March 2014 than did in September 2013. Now, as I am sure Peter has mentioned somewhere, the study isflawed in timing and sample size, but if the number is even close to accurate, we still have 30 million plus uninsured. Again, how is this success?

  • sasob||

    If their bs helps the Dems retain the Senate next November, as it is intended, then this is a success. That's really all it is about. Just hype to keep the marks' confidence up.

  • Almanian!||

    8% Shriek. Eight. Percent.

  • GILMORE||

    The facts are this =

    = no "facts" will be anything but political bullshit until at least 2017.

    At which point we will be presented with some new legislation which will make even harder to truly understand how fucking awful the ACA impact actually was.

    One of the defining features of the ACA is that it enables the people playing the game to 'Keep Score'. Therefore this will be a nonstop series of victories in the face of persistent adversity by...uh... the GOP *complaining*... because when you MANDATE something, and people follow your command? THAT IS VICTORY. Even when you have more people uninsured than you did before. And everything costs more. And average care declines. Don't worry, there will be a better and better and better headline number to tout *every three months or so* until the next president takes over. At which point we will receive a Reality Makeover again. And New and Important legislation will be passed "Fixing" some details in the old Fix that was supposed to Solve the Problems of the thing before the Fixes...

    This will be called Progress.

  • ||

    Exactly. Anyone who believes anything coming out of the administration is functionally retarded at best, and the equivalent of a head of lettuce at worst. Like anything else politicized, everything is lies, distortion, tweaked numbers, and general bullshit.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Be nice if we had some sort of check on this sort of fraud. Like voting the crooks out of office, impeaching them, tarring and feathering them, or maybe reading about these frauds and crimes in some sort of printed material written by some sort of professional watchdogs.

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    You speak crazy talk now !

  • OneOut||

    Bingo !

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    The Democrat leadership thinks that time is on their side. That in part means Republicans will slowly be roped into propping up the ACA just like lots of other entitlement-power grabs. The press will hound the steadfast opponents of the law, and the Romney wing of the party will eventually embrace and extend it if they get the chance.

  • Juice||

    So wait, are people still signing up now? What the hell was the deadline about?

  • PapayaSF||

    They are probably slow because they are probably counting "enrollments" by hand, because AFAIK the back end of the website still isn't completed.

  • Sudden||

    Y'know, you'd think a guy like Obama of all people would focus on the back end first....

    /stereotypical

  • pan fried wylie||

    Sir SQL-A-Lot

    I. like. big. tables and I etc

  • XM||

    If you're younger than 27 and are under your parent's plan, are you counted as covered or enrolled?

    If I'm not mistaken, some college and grad students under the school's plan. They haven't bought insurance.

    As for the demographics, it's a virtual certainty that most of the enrollees are low middle to middle class white Americans. I live in an immigrant community, and the total number of people who purchased insurance was..... zero. Some of them are flocking to medicaid (medi-cal), but they were already covered by local programs like Healthy Way LA. That's being transitioned to medi-cal now.

    For ACA to be considered a success, most of the 8 million enrollees had be to previously uncovered. Most of them had to be from the underprivileged class. And there has to be INCREASED access to doctors and hospitals.

    Otherwise, the ACA is just another form of a bailout / welfare that generally benefits the very poor or the very rich.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    There are 3 million "under 26ers" separate and distinct from the 8 million exchange participants.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Or not.

  • OneOut||

    Where did that number come from ?

  • sloopyinca||

    Where did that number come from ?

    He picked it clean from his own asshole is my guess.

  • ||

    Y'know, for a guy who passed the Libertarian Purity Test with 110%, you sure do a lot of cheerleading for the greatest leap in fascism we have had in almost 100 years.

    *narrows eyes suspiciously*

  • sloopyinca||

    Now, now, now. He was against the Patriot Act...until 2009.

  • ||

    "For ACA to be considered a success, most of the 8 million enrollees had be to previously uncovered. Most of them had to be from the underprivileged class. And there has to be INCREASED access to doctors and hospitals."

    Add to that reduced costs, which the messiah promised us.

    In reality the inverse of all of those will happen.

  • exchef100||

    Any family not saving the promised $2500 should be able to take it from Obama's childrens' future earnings, since it will be our childrens' future earnings paying for this mess.

  • Raven Nation||

    Plus, you know, calling it Obamacare is racist.

  • steedamike||

    I believe that calling it 'Obamacare' is more neutral than calling it 'Affordable'.

  • OldMexican||

    announcing at an afternoon press conference that 8 million people had signed up for health coverage through the law's insurance exchanges.


    "And if we're lucky, some of those might have even paid their first premium! Let's celebrate!"

  • exchef100||

    8 million "enrolled" is no cause to celebrate because many of them are buying private insurance plans. The real cause for celebration are the untold millions newly enrolled in medicaid. A true prog victory.

  • exchef100||

    8 million "enrolled" is no cause to celebrate because many of them are buying private insurance plans. The real cause for celebration are the untold millions newly enrolled in medicaid. A true prog victory.

  • OldMexican||

    I say “unexpectedly” because while the administration’s own projections did foresee some increased activity in the last month, they did not anticipate the size of the spike that ended up occurring.


    It is indeed an interesting spike, like 70% of the total sign-ins of the previous months combined in only a single month, almost a two-fold increase. Isn't that special? I can almost read the words "Bullshit" in the middle of the column. You see?

  • Libertymike||

    OM-

    Hey, I see that you have a friend, Jerry Wolfgang, over at EPJ!

  • craiginmass||

    Keep at it, folks....the tide is turning...

    "New results from a Reuters/Ipsos tracking poll show that Dems lead the GOP by at least seven percentage points on health care. Of the 1,2000 adults interviewed between April 1 and April 16, 29% said they believe Dems have “the better plan for health care.” Only 22% favored GOP proposals."

  • Sevo||

    Yeah, craig, free shit appeals to idjits. Tell us more!

  • ~Knarf Yenrab~||

    It's soooo popular!

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    So in other words, a near majority think both parties are full of idiots that can't be trusted to manage health care?

    Not sure how you think that is a win for Team Blue.

  • Brian||

    craiginmass:

    Of the 1,2000 adults interviewed between April 1 and April 16, 29% said they believe Dems have “the better plan for health care.” Only 22% favored GOP proposals."

    Considering that about 33% of the people are democrats themselves, perhaps a better lead sentence would be:

    "Dems trust themselves over GOP on health care."

  • Pulseguy||

    53% of voters voted for Obie last election, and healthcare is the only issue he stood out on, and only 29% favor the Dems health plans now that it has started to be implemented? This indicates a gigantic drop in support. The GOP proposals have been hidden by the press, they are almost nonexistent in people's minds, yet their proposals still get almost the same level of support? If you think the tide is turning I would agree, but I have a feeling you and I aren't going to agree on whether it is now going up, or going down.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    New data signal smaller jump in health care costs

    Axene says that as insurers dig through the new health exchange enrollees to figure out their ages and health conditions to determine next year's premiums, he expects an overall increase of 6% to 8.5%. He bases that on work he and others within the society have done with insurance clients. Before the Affordable Care Act, premiums rose an average of 7-10% a year.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/.....s/7515185/

  • Lord Humungus||

    But I thought it was supposed to bend the cost curve down.

    and you could keep your plan.

    and your doctor.

  • BigT||

    I am self employed, and re-upped with my provider in Dec to avoid the ACA. My premium increased 17%, my deductible tripled. TheIns co said they would have even higher rates in the ACA.

    F the Prez. May he and all Dems choke on a fish taco.

  • ~Knarf Yenrab~||

    They don't deserve a fish taco.

  • OneOut||

    And the loses that the insurance companies will realize with these small increases will be made up through " risk corridors" created by the insurance lobbyists who wrote the ACA.

  • JWatts||

    "Before the Affordable Care Act, premiums rose an average of 7-10% a year."

    Umm, no.

    According to Kaiser, from 1991-2009 average healthcare increases were 5.3% for the US.

    http://kff.org/other/state-ind.....er-capita/

    "Government data show that the growth in premiums has tracked directly with the growth in underlying medical costs. Thus, as health care costs increase, so do premiums."

    http://www.ahip.org/Issues/Ris.....Costs.aspx

  • politicsbyothermeans||

    New data indicates "just the tip."

  • Lord Humungus||

    several points -

    the law - or what remains of it - won't be paying for itself:

    Employer/individual mandate penalties: These were supposed to have brought in $12 billion through 2015, $101 billion over the first ten years. Because the Obama Administration has repeatedly delayed their enforcement, to date they haven’t brought in much of anything. Some ACA advocates are even beginning to downplay the significance of possibly ditching these mandates altogether, though they were central to the law’s financing scheme.

    Medicare Advantage: The ACA was supposed to be financed in part by cuts to Medicare Advantage (MA) totaling $31 billion through FY2015, $128 billion over the first ten years. The White House recently announced that planned MA cuts will not go into effect after all.


    http://www.economics21.org/com.....nt-figures

  • Lord Humungus||

    so other than raising the medical costs, increasing coverage costs, what exactly has the law done other than provide subsidies for a sliver of a sliver of the population?

    On a more meta-scale, small "victories" aside, the law is still immoral. It may exist in some bastardized form in the future - subsidies for the "poor" and those smart enough to game it - but as it currently stands, the whole kit 'n' kaboodle won't be anything like it was originally "enacted". And if a Republican president takes charge, who knows what would remain - if a downright repeal doesn't happen.

  • OneOut||

    Free birth control my Lord. Free birth control

    Why do you hate women ?

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Ye jest - but you answered the question - what is the major victory here.

    The answer is everyone's lives are open to inspection in any detail they wish to dig because your behavior can directly cost me money.

    That will be the argument when the discuss not allowing children in divorces near a parent who smokes - after all, they recently told us of the dangers of even third hand smoke. That is getting sick on the smoke smell present in a home or car even if the individual isn't smoking when the other individual is present.

    It's a short hop, skip, and a jump from there to all out ban.

    & that's just one piece of it, which will mostly be used to set the precedent of passing laws to control behavior all ostensibly to control costs.

    & since smokers are the new Satans - who better to start with?

    After that - contemplate soda bans, but much worse and much more intrusive nation wide.

    & finally note, when a vocal, but small group of libertarians preferred the idea early in this debate that any such intrusion opens itself up immediately to more tyranny, not greater freedoms, does anyone recall what we were told?

    Same thing we were told when we said "once they effectively ban public smoking, they will try to go further into full bans":

    That's slippery slope and just false. We're too smart for those things!

    Yet we're watching it now - from that perspective the slippery slope has transformed into a cliff's edge with a 5 mile drop. & we're currently two steps over the edge.

  • OneOut||

    Smoking generates an awful lot of sin tax revenue that would be hard to replace if an outright ban were passed.

  • Lord Humungus||

    also - the way Obama is hawking this abomination is rather demeaning to the "Office of the Presidency" - whatever respect remains for the office.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Krugabe: America might very well be the most unequal society in history

    Americans may be living in the most unequal society that has ever existed, said economist Paul Krugman.

    [snip]

    The Nobel Prize winner said this troubling trend began around 1980, when President Ronald Reagan was elected and began implementing supply-side economic policies that promised more wealth for everyone if tax burdens were lifted for the rich.

    “The fact of the matter is, since inequality began soaring, around 1980, the bottom half of America has pretty much been left behind,” Krugman said. “There has not been a rising tide that raised all boats.”

    But he said American political leadership had throughout history set corrective paths whenever wealth became too unbalanced.

    “If we could have modern politicians speaking forthrightly about the danger of high concentration of wealth, as Teddy Roosevelt did in 1910, we would be a long toward a good solution for this,” Krugman said, “and I guess I believe that America has a tremendous redemptive capacity and ability to take a look and say, ‘OK, in the end, what are our ideals? What do we want our society to look like?’”

    THIS IS WHAT PROGRESSIVES ACTUALLY BELIEVE

  • ||

    No, this is what a class warfare think tank pays him $25,000 a month to write.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Does he explain why concentrating wealth is bad?

  • BigT||

    Does he explain why hard working people should not make as much money as they can as long as they are honest?

  • ~Knarf Yenrab~||

    There has not been a rising tide that raised all boats.

    Speaking as someone who posts via tablet from the middle of nowhere on a wireless network, this Nobel-lite Laureate is full of crap. We're lucky that capital accumulation has likely reached the point that not even statist parasites and economic illiterates like Krugman can stop the advance of wealth and civilization.

    And the "high concentration of wealth" he frets about, of course, has nothing to do with political connections, rent seeking, and big government. In Paul's defense, he was on vacation the week that Buffett flew to the White House to personally lobby Barry Obama for a $95 billion bailout for Berkshire Hathaway properties.

  • Agammamon||

    Has he been to North Korea lately?

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    He also does not explain how communist countries---that were ostensibly committed to ending inequality---were the most unequal societies in modern history.

    The Waltons having billions doesn't impinge on my liberty to travel, engage in free speech, or or access information. All things that a tiny political elite deprived the masses of in communist countries.

  • craiginmass||

    How about Social Democracies (socialism) like Denmark, Norway, Sweden and even modern Germany and Switzerland, etc. - how are they working out in terms of equality, mortality, happiness and quality of life?

    Why?

    Throwing out such "faces' as you have done above is ridiculous. Surely you can count? If so, please tell us which country in the world has brought more people out of poverty faster than at at time in history. Hint: It starts with a C and it's political structure does also. Your answer???

    It's not even close. They kicked the butt of places like India with "truer" democracies.

    I'm not saying I want some Reds running this place, just that when you state total BS, you should be schooled on some current events.

    Oh, and those Waltons DO impinge on your liberties in many insidious ways - but it would not fit in 1500 characters. They have created much of the current inequality, trade imbalance and deficit - as they are masters - both personally and corporately - at privatizing the gains and socializing the losses.

  • ||

    So you think China, whose economic gains are based on slave labor, is better than here where the evil Waltons infringe on our liberties in many insidious ways.

    You are a genius.

  • craiginmass||

    Slave labor?
    Yeah, sounds like you've been to China a lot recently......

    Sorry to be the one to break this to you, but they are kicking our butt because of their willingness to work for a living, as opposed to selling mortgage re-fi and securities.

  • oncogenesis||

    Give me just 3 of the many insidious ways that the Waltons are impinging on my liberties. Shouldn't be too difficult for you since they are many. And insidious.

  • craiginmass||

    1. They have funded and created the entire BS system around the "death tax" (they made that word up) and using that and similar method, drove our debt and deficit up to levels which - as you know - hurt all of us in many ways.

    2. 40 years ago the largest employer in the USA was GM, which paid an average (in todays $$) of about $50 per hour in wages and benefits. Today, Walmart is the biggest employer in the USA paying below $10 an hour and very few benefits. As such, they are a drain on the total system as our liberties (taxes) are being used to give food stamps, medical care and other services to their millions of employees.

    3. The Waltons have forced manufacturing jobs offshore by demanding that their vendors NOT make the product here - this is often done directly (they hook up vendor with the Chinese) or just by price pressure. Or, they will simply steal your invention or design and copy it in Communist China. That, again, hurts our economy.

    I could go on. Many businesses in rural America closed once Walmart opened up - instead of family businesses which kept money local, money goes to the Waltons.

    That's off the top of my head. I could probably come up with a lot more, such as the pollution generated when they are making all that crap in China - which has fewer or no regs - is poisoning our air too.

    I don't expect you to agree - but maybe think about it a little.

  • Jordan||

    China did not make any gains at all on any social indicators until they embraced markets. Communism killed 100 million people there and left the rest mired in poverty.

  • craiginmass||

    Let's talk about current realities. The OP made a statement. Is it true that income inequalities in China, Vietnam and Cuba are larger...or smaller...than the capitalist world?

    Should be an easy metric to find out.

    I'm not attached to any answer - just the facts. When someone throws out such a statement, I wonder if it's rhetoric or researched. Surely you support that?

  • Hydra||

    The Nordic countries benefit from zero defense spending and small, homogeneous populations. You can't duplicate that anywhere else.

    And India was fairly Marxist until recently, too, so very poor comparison there too.

  • PapayaSF||

    I love it how, when defending the "workability" of socialism, the examples are always Northern European. As Milton Friedman pointed out, there's no poverty among Swedish-Americans, either.

    Culture matters, and some things don't scale. "Social democracy" can kinda-sorta work if you have a small number of Northern Europeans who don't have significant military spending (because we defend them). That doesn't mean it'll work in the US, or in Central or South America, which the US is becoming more like.

    And, of course, all those "successful" examples of socialism are demographically dying. Coincidence?

  • Hydra||

    Swap Stockholm and Chicago's population and see how long Sweden's prosperity lasts.

  • OneOut||

    Oh O Oh I know I know

    Pick me pick me.

    CUBA !

    "How about Social Democracies (socialism) like Denmark, Norway, Sweden and even "

    I can't speak for the rest but immediately after WW11 Norway nationalized the dominate oil company and all the oil it controlled and has used private contractors to get it out of the ground.

    That income, plus the advantage of having it's shipping lines kept open thanks to the US taxpayer has done wonders for it's social democracy.

    Venezuela is the social democracy the world should emulate.

    Their leaders are so committed to social justice they forego the decadent capitalist pleasure of toilet paper for the masses. Of course now that they don't have much food to eat that's not the problem it once was.

  • Pulseguy||

    Yeah, china has done well, wherever it has embraced capitalism. Where it hangs on to statism it does not so well.

    Your argument defeats itself.

    When it embraced pure communism and socialism it was mired in poverty. Now a small uber rich class has done exceedingly well whereas its workers are still poor, but not as poor, thanks to capitalism.

  • craiginmass||

    Any of these arguments could be taken either way. The US has a high infant mortality rate and vast poverty and lack of education. Since we are the richest country in the world - by far - we should, ideally, have many less problems.

    Modern Russia is the Koch Brothers dream....pretty much the same state they are trying to create here. Russia went "capitalistic", didn't it?

    My take is that different systems work better or worse for different situations and people. We should take the best parts of capitalism (innovation, drive) and meld them with what the end result should be (PEOPLE).....I think we tend to forget about what the end game is.

    Capitalism isn't a religion. Markets are nothing new. It seems as if some of you think it's some kind of magic. Markets created drug cartels, oil cartels, slavery and many other things we may not think as positive.

    We should spend more time considering what the "General Welfare, Happiness of the People and Fruits of Liberty" really are. I posit that they - returning the benefits of the market to ALL Americans. That's what a country is to some degree...or at least a modern one.

    I really doubt that the founders thought that getting away without paying taxes was part of the deal (many here seem to celebrate that).

  • sasob||

    Throwing out such "faces' as you have done above is ridiculous. Surely you can count? If so, please tell us which country in the world has brought more people out of poverty faster than at at time in history. Hint: It starts with a C and it's political structure does also.

    If you are referring to Communist China, perhaps you would like to tell us how many millions of their own people they had to kill in the process. No? About 65 million, the last I read. I guess those were the ones they just couldn't bring out of poverty, huh?

  • Derpetologist||

    Today on Derpbook:


    On Pelosi....I really only had to watch 12 seconds of this video to formulate a response. When Pelosi talks about raising the minimum wage, she is referring to jobs that people get to earn a living, pay rent, feed their families, etc. Which in turn means all of that money is spent immediately within the economy. Raising the minimum wage means more money in people's hands to spend on necessary goods and services...All of which goes right back into the local economy, not offshore bank accounts or investments, every penny goes directly to bills, food, clothes, medicine, etc. Raising the minimum wage also means LESS people qualify for food stamps and welfare, as it is now, someone who has no job and is on welfare and food stamps, would make almost the same exact amount of money working a typical minimum wage job. If conservatives really hate freeloaders and welfare that much they would want people to get paid enough to NOT qualify for welfare. Comparing Pelosi's interns, or ANY interns to any kind of worker is a huge stretch because it is widely accepted that interns are rarely ever paid, are NOT employees, and are working for experience and college credit. There literally is no comparison. Once again, like comparing apples and hippos.
  • Derpetologist||

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    "not offshore bank accounts or investments"

    My favorite part.

    Who needs all these icky investments? What we need are high paying jobs!

  • Raven Nation||

    Didn't Obama or the Congressional Dems stop unpaid internships?

  • BigT||

    Hillary salutes you!

  • Derpetologist||

    I have a great idea for a fast food franchise- I'll just call all my workers interns so I can pay them a stipend instead of by the hour.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Not enough broken windows.

  • ULOST||

    Those MSNBC truth seekers will expose this ultra extreme and radical fraud for what it is and hand Oblamer his hat. Yes, nurse. More morphine. A little more. The doctor says it's not cost effective to treat me. It's not fair.

  • Derpetologist||

    more derp:


    Paying your workers more IS making capital improvments. If your employees are happy they are more motivated and productive. Interns are not workers, they are there for experience and class credit. If they weren't there, nothing would change. They are given busy work for the experience, not out of need. What good is a $2 an hour job if the person doing that job still cannot afford the eat or support themselves. The purpose of a job is to give people money to live and eat, not just give them something to do and keep busy.
    I am not really going to spend time arguing the semantics of class credit/experience interns vs. Eating/paying rent/providing for family workers.
  • Ayn Random Variation||

    "The purpose of a job is to give people money to live and eat"

    Holy shit. How do you do this to yourself?

  • Derpetologist||

    Derp is my passion and profession.

  • Aloysious||

    It all makes so much more sense when you say it like that...

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    Do you earn above minimum wage ? If not, maybe they should raise it so you can earn a living and not starve and shit.

  • Derpetologist||

    About 2% of workers get min wage. Most of them are students who live with their parents.

    Here endeth your trolling.

  • ~Knarf Yenrab~||

    If your employees are happy they are more motivated and productive.

    This person needs to start his own business and take advantage of all that extra motivation and productivity just waiting to be farmed from underpaid workers. It's a shame that every other business in existence hasn't benefited from all that unexplored productivity, but someone has to be the trailblazer.

  • Derpetologist||

    He has his own business! Although I am beginning to suspect that the guys he founded it with take care of the money stuff.

  • ~Knarf Yenrab~||

    You should congratulate him for giving all his employees a $2/hr raise effective tomorrow.

  • Derpetologist||

    I've already asked about what health benefits he provides. I'm pretty sure he's paying them all under the table, when he pays them at all. The best part is he uses volunteer labor to gather the berries and stuff he sells.

  • Sudden||

    Employment regulations for thee, not for me.

  • Derpetologist||

    He deliberated incorporated in Cook County instead of Chicago to avoid red tape. Now he spends his days on Derpbook railing against the evils of deregulation.

  • Dweebston||

    Progressivism is identity, not ideology. He doesn't need to be an expert on regulatory burden, or even versed in the debate over it. He just needs to express his displeasure with (what he perceives as) deregulation. Boom, he's in the eternal self-congratulatory circle-jerk called internet progressivism.

  • Derpetologist||

    "the eternal self-congratulatory circle-jerk called internet progressivism."

    Also know as Facebook.

  • Derpetologist||

    This just in:


    I collect coins, I know this. Up until 1935 or so an ounce of silver was fixed at $1.28. An ounce of gold was $19.60. Now it's $20 and $1300. The global elite and the bankers won. And continue to win.

    This was his response to me pointing out that the govt stopped minting silver coins in 1964 and went off the gold standard in 1973.

    But governments don't cause inflation! Only evil banksters do!

    herp herp herpa derp!

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Who is worried about inflation? We have it cleanly beaten.

    Maybe in 15-20 years or so when capacity is all taken then a little inflation might gain some headway.

  • Derpetologist||

    Gold used to be $400 an ounce 20 years ago. Now it's over $1300. Yep, inflation is under control.

    /derp

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    So since gold was $1900 in 2012 we are in a deflationary cycle?

  • Derpetologist||

    I look at long term trends. The trend is that the price of gold has gone way up ever since the US went off the gold standard. The quantity of money has gone up by a lot in the same period.

    Connect the god damn dots already!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSEYGsk6KTM

  • Derpetologist||

    Well, that shut him up.

  • Hyperion||

    Gasoline was $1.03 a gallon in 1980. During the same year, milk was 1.80 a gallon.

    During this same year, the average price of a car was $6000 and a house $86,000.

    Inflation is only real for countries that are NOT MURIKA! IT CAN'T HAPPEN HERE, BECAUSE... WELL, FUCKING BECAUSE!!!

    What the fuck planet does ButtHead live on, because it sure as fuck is not Earth.

  • Derpetologist||

    I have dime from 1946. That dime is worth the same as it was back then. Why?

    Because it's made of silver.

    There is a reason why things like gold and silver have been used as money for as long as their has been money.

  • Hyperion||

    I've been in the metals market. In 1980 I sold my silver coin collection when the price hit $50 to $1 face coin value.

    I stayed in the biz for a decade after cashing in on lesser peaks and valleys.

    But this really has nothing to do with our fiat currency. Anyone who can say that inflation is imaginary when I can remember 0.17$ buying a gallon of gas, $0.15 buying a gallon of milk, and $50 buying enough groceries to feed a family of 3 for a month, clearly do not understand what inflation is.

    Right now, the dollar is suffering inflation. Because if it's not, can someone explain to me why the price of shrimp, in a major port city, has increased from $4 a lb. to $10 a lb. in the last 3 years? And prices of groceries across the board has been increasing at pretty much the same rate?

  • Derpetologist||

  • Ted S.||

    Prices haven't been going up; portion sizes have been going down.

    My favorite was a box of dryer sheets that advertised having 27 FREE sheets. Whatever the price was was only for the first 223 sheets, to make up a box of 250. At some point they're going to get rid of the "FREE" sheets.

    And the last bag of cat food I bought wsa only 15.5 lbs. I seem to recall cat food generally coming in 20-pound bags.

  • sasob||

    Used to be 25-pound bags. And have you noticed lately how much actual coffee there is in a 3-pound can? Often not even 2.25 pounds! But it's not just portion sizes that are going down and rising prices, it is also that quality of many things is dropping. As an example ask any serious tradesman or craftsman if he prefers Chinese-made handtools or vintage American -made. This is a process that has been going on since the 1960's, at least.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Who is worried about inflation? We have it cleanly beaten.

    Wrong again, dumbass:

    http://www.caseyresearch.com/l.....lation.gif

  • OneOut||

    Buttplug, adults who buy food at grocery stores know more about the truth of inflation than you.

  • Hyperion||

    Has anyone posted this yet? Just asking you know, because my free time seems to just get more precious with passing years. The down side of believing in working for what is yours, instead of asking the state to steal it from others(you know, being Tony), I suppose.

    Anyway. I know this is a fringe site and I don't without question believe anything that I read there.

    But, did this prick really just say this shit, or not?

    Harry Reid calling Bundy supporters terrorists

  • ~Knarf Yenrab~||

    The Blaze reported it too, so it's real.

    Reid's just pissed that some rancher cut into a backroom deal that was going to enhance his nest egg and feather his son's nest as well. I look forward to the Nevada electorate's boot meeting his leathery ass in 2016.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    You better run someone with more sense than that idiot Sharron Angle then.

  • Hyperion||

    Are you defending Reid and the BLM, or not, Mr. More Libertarian than all of us, or not?

    Stop deflecting from the topic, or STFU and go away.

  • ~Knarf Yenrab~||

    Shush. The grownups are talking.

  • OneOut||

    Hi Barney

  • politicsbyothermeans||

    Why would libertarians give a dry fuck who Team Red runs?

  • craiginmass||

    Yeah, everything Glenn Beck says much be real. After all, he's a journalist.....

    What does this have to do with the great successes of the ACA? Or is it simply that any success of this country drives some of you to fantasize about guns?

    Wow.....

  • Hyperion||

    Obtain literacy and intelligence and then we can talk.

  • craiginmass||

    Do I have to subscribe to Beck's podcasts and O'Reillys special channels to qualify?

  • Hyperion||

    I couldn't help you with that, as I'm a libertarian and not a conservative.

    See, if you knew the difference, you would already start seeing the light. But exactly like the O'Reilly and Beck fans, you can't put down you team pom-poms and start to think, can you?

    We will forgive you, grasshopper. Take off the blinders and learn.

  • steedamike||

  • politicsbyothermeans||

    I know this is going to be hard for you to understand Masshole but the R in reason doesn't stand for Republican.

    Very few here give a fuck what Beck has to say. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

    Always funny when Nancy boys bring guns into the equation... who is it that spends all their time thinking about guns? Hmmm???

  • ~Knarf Yenrab~||

    I am curious as to how the late, great Sen. Reid knows that those evil domestic terrorists had "automatic weapons." I like to think that Harry had Barry identify all those nasty automatic weapons from a photograph, Barry being an expert on automatic weapons and all.

  • Hyperion||

    I suspect that they had 'semi-automatic', totally legal weapons, and that Reid, like most ignorant politicians and their mindless sheeple minions, don't know the difference. Or they pretend to not know the difference to excite the mindless drones that vote for them.

  • Gorilla tactics||

    "Semi Automatic" with the exception of bolt action rifles, hasn't every gun made since like the fucking 1870s been a semi automatic?

  • PapayaSF||

    Yes, except for revolvers, which AFAIK aren't considered semi-automatic, even though they are also one trigger pull = one shot.

  • Hydra||

    Not really. Revolvers, lever action rifles, pump action shotguns, derringers, double barrel shotguns, and of course single shot weapons are not semiautomatic.

  • politicsbyothermeans||

    No, but it's fair to say that most firearms sold today are semi-automatic.

  • Derpetologist||

    Someone as vile as Reid must have a lot of dirt on other people to stay on power so long.

  • Hyperion||

    Some day, people are going to stop caring about dirt. And I think that day is coming sooner than later. Reid had better start shutting up his mouth now, because on you way down, you start meeting up with the same people whose heads you stepped on on the way up.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    I keep wondering about why on earth the feds just backed off. It's so strange. I mean, they had all of the typical cya boxes checked with the court order, etc., they have a news media that at least half of which would likely been cheering the feds on because team blue, and the institutional mindset of the government is that whatever the problem is the solution is to go get a bigger hammer. I was all ready for it and poof, it's just gone. I hate to take a place like infowars seriously but I can't help but think that there has to be something so dirty underlying this all, or at least something that could be exposed by a closer examination of the circumstances surrounding it that the big boys in DC put it halt. I really wish that there was a large media outlet in the US with some actual journalistic integrity left so that we might eventually find out what the fuck is going on.

    I guess it's always possible, too, that the image obsessed Obama administration poll tested a bloodbath and decided that it would hurt the One.

    I don't know what to think.

  • Hyperion||

    I keep wondering about why on earth the feds just backed off

    Because they were scared, which is exactly as it should be. Did you watch any of the video that people recorded? They were walking straight into their own undoing. Things are changing.

  • Agammamon||

    Yeah - this wasn't a Waco where only the 'suspects' and law enforcement were involved.

    Way too much uncontrolled coverage, way too much support for the Bundys.

  • OneOut||

    The decision makers weren't scared, of the guns at least. Maybe they were scared of lighting the fuse.

  • OneOut||

    I keep wondering about why on earth the feds just backed off. It's so strange."

    Is it not because Reid was caught with his hand in the cookie jar ? He has covered Obama's backside for so long that Obama owed him a solid.

    Reids former staffer who is head of the BLM called them off because Reid was gonna be exposed and maybe even held liable.

  • SlV||

    I hate to take a place like infowars seriously

    They post supporting links and cite sources. You can search to find if there is "another side to the story" or uncited supporting/contradictory documentation too. Some pieces read like straight news stories, some like editorials and some poorly sourced speculation.Infowars does a lot of good journalism.Like any other news source you have to check. I've seen Nick Gillespie link to a straight news source that didn't remotely support what he was citing or to a fringe screed blog that was asserting as fact secondary stuff (w/o citation) that couldn't be documented elsewhere. If something raises a red flag I'm as skeptical of the NYTs or Fox as I am of WND or Rawstory.

  • PapayaSF||

    I guess it's always possible, too, that the image obsessed Obama administration poll tested a bloodbath and decided that it would hurt the One.

    That, or the graft angle, or both.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    “Nothing more than domestic terrorists,” adding, “I repeat: what happened there was domestic terrorism.”

    It's over at DUmmieLand too, except they're whooping and cheering.

    Can't wait for the next set of Occutards to hold up public property in the name of the People's Glorious Revolution.

  • Agammamon||

    You know what, fuck him - yes it was domestic terrorism. The same sort of domestic terrorism you get in any other state when the government repeatedly oversteps its bounds. When that government gets into areas it doesn't belong and then threatens the use of fucking sharpshooters when someone doesn't comply.

    I think Bundy is in the wrong about not having to pay the grazing fees/BLM restrictions.

    But this wouldn't have been a federal issue in the first place if the BLM hadn't taken control of so much land out here.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "if the BLM hadn't taken control of so much land out here."

    Honest question, how did the BLM 'take control' of the land? Was it federal owned land? Was it recently taken? Did the BLM just recently start 'administering' it?

  • Agammamon||

    In this particular Nevada case the BLM started administering the land long after this guy started using it - they changed the rules of his use.

    IMO that's perfectly valid - he's a bad case for libertarians because (again IMO) his 'I'm grandfathered in' case doesn't really have a moral leg to stand on.

    But a lot of the derp (on both sides) could have been avoided if this was either in state or private hands.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    So the land has long been federal, but the BLM's administration, or at least this heavy handed version of it, is recent?

  • Agammamon||

    I don't know if I'd even say it was heavy handed. They *did* wait 20 years before bringing in the snipers.

    Essentially this guy's family has been grazing on this land since before the BLM existed. Don't know how long before that this land was federal.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I confess to being a bit torn on the issue.

    On the one hand, it is hard not to admire someone standing up to the government. Heck, I think the Black Panthers were socialist racialists but still somewhat admire how they engaged in armed resistance to the California governments at times.

    On the other hand, as a 'liberal' classmate of mine put it the other day, how is this different than if an Occupy group had gathered with weapons and declared a right to use government land contrary to the government agency overseeing that land's directives?

  • Agammamon||

    I'm in a similar boat - I like seeing the guy stand up to a useless and overbearing government agency.

    I just don't think he's right about *why* he's doing it.

  • Hydra||

    how is this different than if an Occupy group had gathered with weapons and declared a right to use government land contrary to the government agency overseeing that land's directives?

    If Zucotti Park was a campground, and the Occutards and there ancestors had been camping in Zucotti Park for 60 years, and the NYPD all the sudden now decided they had to start paying for the privilege, there would be a comparison.

  • steedamike||

    Sort of a strange scenario. An occupy wall street group taking up guns on gov't land and defying the gov't would be sort of like a pro-2ndA group taking up guns on NRA land in defiance of the NRA.

  • Tony||

    The law says it does belong there. Who, exactly, gets to declare that invalid?

    Inbred idiots with arsenals, of course!

  • Agammamon||

    Exactly - the same sort of inbred idiots with arsenals who declared the British governance of the US invalid.

  • Tony||

    Good luck with that. Are they going to form a Congress and request the assent of the people whose government they want to overthrow? Or is their idea to just shoot their way to power? You know, for freedom.

  • Agammamon||

    No, they'll form their own government based on the assent of the people they govern.

    They're not going to overthrow the US government - that will stand as long as people like you are willing to submit. Its just that its geographic expanse will be reduced slightly.

  • Agammamon||

    Oh, and last time I checked - the founders of the US government didn't spend a whole lot of time getting the assent of the people they planned on governing.

    Of course in their case some allowance can be made as they didn't intend to do much governing of those people anyway.

  • Hyperion||

    The law says it does belong there.

    Please elaborate on that.

    BTW, is your tongue sore from licking boot all day?

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    The law said a lot of things you would not have agreed with at the time.

    Like, I don't know, blacks sitting at the back of the bus or queers being mentally ill and needing conversion therapy.

    But since icky guns are involved I guess that means these guys can't be in the right on this.

  • Agammamon||

    No, Tony is big on the 'majority rules and if you don't like the rules change them but until then follow them' philosophy of authority.

  • Tony||

    So what precious civil right is being violated here?

  • Agammamon||

    Does that matter? The law is the law, right?

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    I'm intrigued by Bundy's claim through the homesteading principle.

    He is, after all, putting the land to good use. What exactly do the Feds do with all that desert? Is there any reason for them to own it and not the state of Nevada or private actors?

  • Agammamon||

    They protect the desert tortoise! The only higher purpose for that land would be as, say, a really expensive solar power generating project that never produces electricity for less than the cost to build and run the thing.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I am not sure why giving it to the states is better, and the concern with giving it to private actors is you get something like Russia's privatization debacle.

    Still, I agree, why should the federal government own that land? The only reason is this idea they are better 'stewards of the land' than anyone else, which is ludicrous.

  • Agammamon||

    Well, at least with state ownership you don't have people in Massachussetts deciding what to do with land 1500 miles away.

    And privatization is always risky but that's mainly because of the incompetence and corruption of the government people overseeing the bidding process - not really a good reason to *keep* it in government hands.

    And finally, I'd point out that Bundy was putting the land to productive use while the BLM simply wanted to let it lie fallow for the sake of a (not actually) endangered animal.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I only disagree with the last point, land owners can and should do whatever they want with the land, not what is productive in some person's eyes.

    But your point about state ownership and privatization is very persuasive.

  • Agammamon||

    I agree - unfortunately our own government doesn't, as evidenced by the excuses used to levy eminent domain for private benefit.

    IMO - sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The government's use of the land didn't generate as much tax revenue as Bundy's so maybe he should have just gotten his local government to declare it blights, seize it, and give it to him for 'development':)

  • OneOut||

    " Is there any reason for them to own it and not the state of Nevada or private actors?"

    Turtles

    Tortoises

    FYTW

  • politicsbyothermeans||

    I would pay cash fucking money to be there when you told them, to their faces, that they were a bunch of inbred idiots.

    Internet tough guys are the coolest.

  • sasob||

    Actually it was the local sheriff who was referring to Bundy in particular and Mormons in general as "inbred idiots."

  • BigT||

    One program I listen to mentioned that when the Northwest Ordinance created OH, IN, MI, IL, WI as states, all of the land became STATE not federal land. Why was it different with the western states? Shouldn't all that land belong to Nevada?

  • Agammamon||

    Yep.

    I can't speak for Nevada specifically but AZ turned over most of its land to federal management simply because they didn't want to pay for managing it themselves.

    The idea of *not* managing it or parceling it out to private parties was never considered.

    IMO the federal government should never have even entertained the possibility of managing huge tracts of land in *any* part of the US. Leave that stuff to the states to manage as best they can and only worry about actual federal facilities.

  • Hyperion||

    Where is this DUmmieLand? You mean Democratic Underground?

    Liberals, LMAO!

  • Tony||

    What if they were Muslims? Think you'd give the slightest shit if the feds didn't even let them get to the point of forming armed militias?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    With a few vocal exceptions I have not found most commenters here to be of the anti-Muslim type.

    But if your point is that if these people were Muslims in Dearborn organizing in a similar fashion, then yes I doubt many of their supporters on the right would still be doing so.

  • Agammamon||

    Bo, don't bother. By Tony's standards *you* are dangerously right wing.

  • Tony||

    We have to worry about overt KKK-style racism only to the extent that they start causing trouble. That's the easy part.

    The more insidious racism of the social subconscious does persistent damage.

  • politicsbyothermeans||

    KKK-style racism? I don't think there were any Democrats out there shit for brains.

  • craiginmass||

    Only angry looking white dudes are allowed to form militias. This should be clear.

  • BigT||

    Firearms restrictions disarm more blacks than whites (percentage-wise) given that NYC, Chi, etc are more heavily populated by blacks.

    So stick your racist regs up your racist ass.

  • Tony||

    That's not a bad thing. Poor/aggrieved people with guns are dangerous, and that includes some black people.

  • BigT||

    You would have been a very popular Democrat from 1860-1960 when Dems were disarming blacks all across the South.

    The end of slavery in 1865 did not eliminate the problems of racist gun control laws; the various Black Codes adopted after the Civil War required blacks to obtain a license before carrying or possessing firearms or Bowie knives; these are sufficiently well-known that any reasonably complete history of the Reconstruction period mentions them. These restrictive gun laws played a part in provoking Republican efforts to get the Fourteenth Amendment passed. Republicans in Congress apparently believed that it would be difficult for night riders to provoke the correct level of terror in freedmen who were returning fire.

    --

    Throughout the South during the post-war period, the existing precedents that recognized a right to open carry under state constitutional provisions and the Second Amendment were being narrowed, or simply ignored. The apparent goal of such laws was to intimidate the freedmen into an economically subservient position. By making the freedmen defenseless, employers could be more confident that intimidation would keep their hired hands "in line."
  • steedamike||

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Poor/aggrieved people with guns are dangerous, and that includes some black people.

    Not as dangerous as people who drink, but you certainly won't be limping out about that any time soon.

  • OneOut||

    Let's not dare call "the New Black Panthers" a militia because it points out our hypocrisy.

    Even though armed members did threaten whites at a polling location.

  • Agammamon||

    Well, as the other idiot in the thread pointed out - only white people form militias.

  • OneOut||

    No goober.

    Only armed white groups are called militias.

    Armed groups of "people of color" get different names.

  • OneOut||

    Hi Tony sockpuppet.

  • politicsbyothermeans||

    As can evinced by Crispus "Cracker" Attucks.

  • Hyperion||

    One thing that is for sure, and beyond question, Tony, is that libertarians would defend Muslims rights far beyond what you would even consider.

    You see, unlike you, you self righteous fool, libertarians care about everyone's rights, not just those who agree with us.

    Don't violate the NAP and libertarians will leave you alone.

    What does that say about you and, you know, your suddenly Muslim allies, Tony.

    You're a fucking phony and a coward.

    Now, defend yourself, fucktard, with reason and logic, of just shut the fuck up with you non-sense.

  • Tony||

    The fuck you would. The Waco-boner rightwing blowhard industry would be calling for immediate shipment to Gitmo, so you wouldn't have been told what to think, and you wouldn't give a shit. Armed Muslim militias in America calling for the destruction of the US government? Really?

  • Agammamon||

    What the fuck does the Waco-boner rightwing blowhard industry have to do with the question?

    We're talking about libertarians here boy, do try to keep up.

  • Tony||

    But you repeat yourself. If it were Muslims, there would be no freedom movement, you god damn well know it, and you guys wouldn't even think to support the cause.

    Even if you believe in your heart that radical Muslims have the right to form armed private militias and advocate for the overthrow of the United States, I'd bet you'd figure out the pragmatic thing is to not say that too loud.

  • Agammamon||

    We're libertarians arsehole - that shit is a core plank of our philosophy.

  • Hyperion||

    But you repeat yourself. If it were Muslims, there would be no freedom movement

    You see, right here is one of your delusions.

    You don't understand what freedom is.

    To you, freedom is a big centralized government forcing what you believe onto everyone else, and oppressing by force, everyone who doesn't agree with you.

    That is the exact opposite of freedom.

    Even if you believe in your heart that radical Muslims have the right

    They have the right to believe whatever they want to, as long as they don't violate the NAP.

    Simple concepts are too much for the Tony to grasp. I am trying to be nice, but you test my patience.

  • Tony||

    But let's not forget who the aggressors are here. The people stealing property and defending their loot with guns.

  • Agammamon||

    So, the federal government then?

  • Tony||

    Their property. They were driven from defending their own property by people in the rightwing militia movement.

    It's not about aggression at all, it's about government=evil.

  • Agammamon||

    How did they come by that property again?

  • OneOut||

    Tony|4.17.14 @ 9:50PM|#

    Their property. They were driven from defending their own property by people in the rightwing militia movement.

    It's not about aggression at all, it's about government=evil.

    But Tony, they stole that property from the Injuns.

  • OneOut||

    Tony|4.17.14 @ 9:50PM|#

    Their property. They were driven from defending their own property by people in the rightwing militia movement.

    It's not about aggression at all, it's about government=evil.

    But Tony, they stole that property from the Injuns.

  • sasob||

    I thought "Injuns" always maintained that land could not be owned?

  • Hyperion||

    But let's not forget who the aggressors are here. The people stealing property and defending their loot with guns.

    I see that we finally agree. Harry Reid gives 2 thumbs up for this comment.

  • Hyperion||

    Right, Tony. Government goons are now swooping down on land owned by peaceful Muslims and libertarians are calling for them to be sent to Gitmo.

    You're beyond dishonest or just downright stupid. I think it's both.

  • Tony||

    I flatter you by assuming you'd have the presence of mind not to want to ship anyone to Gitmo. I'm just saying, we're talking about armed morons who don't believe in the United States. They're dangerous no matter their color.

    You just wouldn't be supporting them if they were any other color than white.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Tony, do you have similar views on the people in the Stonewall Riots who resisted the authorities?

  • Tony||

    Nope, but I am not clear about what human right is being denied here.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    I'm just saying, we're talking about armed morons who don't believe in the United States.


    ....

    I'm pretty sure they understand where they are, Tony w/o spaces.

    They're dangerous no matter their color.

    Dangerous to who? The government's sworn law enforcers are a greater threat to my safety than a guy in Nevada who wants to graze his cattle in peace.

    You just wouldn't be supporting them if they were any other color than white.

    Uh-oh. Tony has deployed the Racism Detector Ray (patent pending). Hyperion, you're screwed, buddy. The RDR never lies.

  • Hyperion||

    You just wouldn't be supporting them if they were any other color than white.

    LOL, you brainwashed fool.

    who don't believe in the United States.

    Right, no government that was ever formed, no matter how good in the beginning, has ever become corrupt in the end. I suppose that you then would have agreed 100% with the racism by the US government during the era before the civil war and the racism policies after? Right, Tony?

    You are making enemies of your friends and embracing your enemies. Do you think that your TEAM is worth it?

  • Agammamon||

    Tony - you're the only one here who believes in (or wants) the *United States*.

    The rest of believe in the *united states*.

    Do you understand the difference?

  • Tony||

    But do feel free to point me to your impassioned defense of those armed black panthers bravely defending our right to vote at that polling booth that one time.

  • Agammamon||

    Really? When did that happen?

    Or are you talking about these guys

    On Election Day in 2008, three members of the New Black Panther Party stood outside a polling place in Philadelphia, with one of them brandishing a nightstick or baton. The Justice Department under President George W. Bush filed a civil complaint again three Black Panthers — Minister King Samir Shabazz, Malik Zulu Shabazz and Jerry Jackson — charging them with violating voter rights by using coercion, threats and intimidation. The Obama administration later dismissed most of the case, even though the Black Panthers *had not contested the charges*.

  • Tony||

    That would be them.

  • Agammamon||

    So not so much defending the right to vote as voter intimidation then?

  • Tony||

    Looks like it's all a matter of perspective doesn't it?

    If only there were a simple, let's say color-coded, way of working these things out.

  • Agammamon||

    Looks like it's all a matter of perspective doesn't it?

    No, not really - it looks like a clear-cut case of voter intimidation to me.

    If only there were a simple, let's say color-coded, way of working these things out.

    Apparently there is - let the scary black man do what he wants.

  • politicsbyothermeans||

    You fucking twat. It's bad for Team Red to other Muslims but no big deal for you to do the same with libertarians?

    Hypocritical slimy bag of offal.

  • steedamike||

    Tony and other progressive commenters - I keep seeing you guys confuse libertarians with a negative stereotype of conservatives that happen to be racist. Progressives don't have a monopoly on fighting for a minority or the oppressed. Search reason for stop-and-frisk for instance.

  • RishJoMo||

    Sounds like a plan to me dude, I mean like wow.

    www.GotsDatAnon.tk

  • Agammamon||

    If, as Carney said in January, that number is much more important than the total number of sign-ups, then that’s probably a bad sign for Obamacare.

    Jeez man! That number was important in *Janurary*. Its April now - completely different month.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    All of this goalpost moving is making me dizzy.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Or as Krugman would call this, prosperity!

    UK government announces further tax rises: sales tax up on alcohol, tobacco, cinema tickets. Income tax stays at 50%. pic.twitter.com/ctf9HApMCf

    — WW2 Tweets from 1942 (@RealTimeWWII) April 17, 2014


    [removed][removed]

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Meh, we're talking about a fully mobilized country fighting for its existence here against a far larger and more powerful foe. I'll cut some slack to a country on a war footing defending against the hegemony of a genocidal maniac, for having a high tax rate to pay for said defense.

    Far less justifiable is why the UK's wartime rationing persisted until the mid-50s -- long after Germany and other participants had ended their rationing programs.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Of course it was necessary when fighting an actual threat, but recall Krugman said we would end our economic woes if we became convinced an imaginary alien race was attacking us from space and mobilized to fight it.

    Which would result in stuff like that being imposed on use when it isn't necessary. Krugman actually think destruction and misallocation of resources is good for an economy.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "Krugman said we would end our economic woes if we became convinced an imaginary alien race was attacking us from space and mobilized to fight it."

    There was an Alan Moore comic book about that, correct?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Ah, I missed the context on that one.

  • Derpetologist||

    But but but I was told WW2 got us out of the Depression! Just look at the unemployment figures- especially for young men.

    /derp

  • Derpetologist||

    But but but I was told WW2 got us out of the Depression! Just look at the unemployment figures- especially for young men.

    /derp

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    The WPA paid people to post comments, and then repost them ;)

  • Agammamon||

    Posts saved or created.

  • Derpetologist||

    Common Core worksheet filled with pro-govt propaganda:

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013.....lassrooms/

  • Derpetologist||

    The worst pars:


    Govt officials' commands must be obeyed by all.

    An individual's wants are less important than the nation's well-being.
  • Anonymous Coward||

    “The wants of an individual are less important than the well-being of the nation”

    “the commands of government officials must be obeyed by all.”

    Horseshit. If the nation doesn't defend my interests, then what good is the nation to me that I should defend it?

  • Derpetologist||

    Shh! You're not suppose to figure that part out!

  • Agammamon||

    Ask not what your country can do for you mother-fucker. Just sign the god-damned tax check.

    -A JFK for the new century -

  • OneOut||

    The "commands" ?

    Not even the "laws" huh ?

    Just the "commands".

    WOW

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    “the commands of government officials must be obeyed by all.”

    ...said the Belarussian corporal before shooting the kulak's family one by one in the back of the head for "confiscating" a head of lettuce from the collective.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    They just dropped the "Government is Awesome" stuff in the middle of a workbook whose other examples were from the Civil War.

    If the government is so awesome, why do we find ourselves in the position of using the government to enslave and kill each other?

  • wareagle||

    this from the worksheet was interesting:
    Sergeant William Carney was a soldier in an African American regiment during the Civil War.

    never mind that A-A did not exist as a term until the late 80s or so, it would appear that the Union had its own version of Jim Crow.

  • Hydra||

    The assignment asks students to make examples of sentences; “less wordy by replacing the underlined words with a possessive noun phrase.”

    It's actually a double irony -- they're trying to teach kids that government is bulky and should be replaced with market structures based on private possession.

  • William of Purple||

  • Agammamon||

    That . . . that look even more ridiculous than a flaccid penis.

  • BigT||

    Not sure if this has been posted yet...

    Judge Strikes Down Costly Provision Of Dodd-Frank
    Marking the first time a court has ruled that a provision of Dodd-Frank violates the Constitution, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that the financial "reform" law's bizarre rule requiring companies to disclose whether their products contain "conflict minerals" from Africa violates the First Amendment.
  • ||

    Ask PB about it. He's an expert, after all.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "President Obama took another victory lap celebrating his health care law today"

    That is going to turn into a backpedaling 'moonwalk' come November.

  • craiginmass||

    I know this is hard for you to imagine, but there are things more important than winning an election - and, of course, Obama isn't running.

    In the rear view mirror, Obama will be able to look at millions of real people whose lives were improved because of his decision to NOT do what is politically correct.

    If we had any sense, we'd celebrate that rather than having so much fun bragging about how well the propaganda paid for by billionaires is gonna hurt Team Blue. But, then again, that would be sanity...and we don't seem to have that here.

    Me? I'm pleased when others succeed. I like it when people are happier and more secure. If the price of that is a few % more out of my pocket, so be it.

    Some things are more important than gold, greenbacks and winning elections.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    If it was benefitting, rather than burdening, so many, I doubt it would be as politically unpopular as it is.

  • craiginmass||

    100% wrong. It's "unpopularity", which I have in quotes since we can poll it any way we want by changing questions, is/was due to propaganda paid for largely by billionaires.

    Death Panels, Witch Doctors, Kill Grandma?? Remember? I was there. Let's have a conversation, but don't snow me.

    As you well know, the AMA supports it as well as Pharma companies and dozens of other really big orgs. ...

    Also, as you well know, Americans have been famously voting and rallying against their own interests (for wars which they die in, for policies which crush them here, etc.) for a long time - usually driven by propaganda from the corporations/media/military/industrial complexes. Remember Hearst?

    You and I both wish people would think. But they don't. Fear is the best mass manipulator and Team Red has been trotting it out since way before this law was even written.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    If I had any doubt you were 'sockpuppeting' this vanquished it:

    "As you well know, the AMA supports it as well as Pharma companies and dozens of other really big orgs"

  • Anonymous Coward||

    100% wrong. It's "unpopularity", which I have in quotes since we can poll it any way we want by changing questions, is/was due to propaganda paid for largely by billionaires.

    Citation?

    As you well know, the AMA supports it as well as Pharma companies and dozens of other really big orgs. ...

    So the Doctor Cartel and the Drug Cartel are both in favor of a law that subsidizes them? I, for one, am totally surprised. Seriously, this is my surprised face.

    Also, as you well know, Americans have been famously voting and rallying against their own interests (for wars which they die in, for policies which crush them here, etc.) for a long time - usually driven by propaganda from the corporations/media/military/industrial complexes. Remember Hearst?

    Wars are typically propigated by government propaganda. Just to pull you into this century, remember when Syria had chemical weapons that Barry couldn't show you proof of, but he was really super serious that the Syrians had them?

    Good times.

    You and I both wish people would think. But they don't. Fear is the best mass manipulator and Team Red has been trotting it out since way before this law was even written.

    Uh-huh. Because screaming that granny will die in the gutter without Obamacare really is morally superior to "DEATH PANELS!!!111!!!!"

  • Sevo||

    craiginmass|4.17.14 @ 8:58PM|#
    "Death Panels,"
    Yes, death panels. What do brain-dead lefties prefer they be called?

    "Witch Doctors, Kill Grandma??"
    Just made that ou, did you?

    "Remember? I was there. Let's have a conversation, but don't snow me."
    So was I you lying sack of shit.

  • politicsbyothermeans||

    "Let's have a conversation..." is proggie code for "Preparing to uncritically regurgitate propaganda."

  • BigT||

    If the price of that is a few % more out of my pocket, so be it.

    Hey, I could use a few %. Why not send it to ME??

    When the govt takes money by force it had damned well be for a function explicitly mentioned in our founding document - "our social contract" if you will. Otherwise it's just theft. And arbitrary, convoluted theft at that.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "When the govt takes money by force it had damned well be for a function explicitly mentioned in our founding document - "our social contract" if you will."

    I am not sure how much better that makes it, I did not sign that contract.

  • Agammamon||

    Maybe, but at least the terms of this one are explicit. That's better than what we got now.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Fair point.

  • BigT||

    You can renounce your citizenship.... for a price!!

    Seriously, I am a minarchist and I think the Founders did the best job yet in setting up this country. I suppose if you don't like the laws you can flaunt them and bear the consequences. Or else work to change them. What would you suggest?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Best job yes, maybe, but that is the world's 'tallest midget.' Would it have killed the Founders to write an explicit recognition of property rights in the Constitution?

  • Tony||

    The Constitution was substantially tarnished by explicit assurances for people who wanted to protect their property, of the human being variety.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    As someone who thinks too many libertarians gloss over the sanctioning of slavery in it, are you really saying all of the Constitution is 'tarnished' because a small few parts sanctioned slavery?

  • Tony||

    I think any document that condones slavery is inherently tarnished... Tarnished doesn't mean worthless, of course.

    I do happen to think the US Constitution is a near-fatally flawed document, despite its obvious genius. But that's to be expected given its age.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    It seems crazy to me to say that all of it is tarnished because of two silly provisions.

    Do you realize how many liberal victories relied on that document?

  • Tony||

    We're defining tarnished differently.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|4.17.14 @ 9:19PM|#
    "I do happen to think the US Constitution is a near-fatally flawed document,"

    Shitpile, no one is waiting for your "corrections".

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Well Tony, thanks in no small part to the Constitution the US is one of the few countries in the West which never banned the Communist party -- you should be grateful for at least that, I'd think.

  • Tony||

    I'm totally grateful. Why is everything black and white with you guys? It's not a perfect document. Its authors would never claim it was.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Are you not the one being black and white? To you the entire document is tarnished because of two provisions.

  • Tony||

    Like a silver pitcher is tarnished when it has some tarnish on it...

  • Redmanfms||

    I'm totally grateful. Why is everything black and white with you guys? It's not a perfect document. Its authors would never claim it was.

    Yeah, they wouldn't have. Rather conspicuously they included an entire article on how to make significant changes to the document.

    Why don't you progtards use the process granted by the writers of the Constitution to amend it, rather than declaring it "all old and shit" and pretending like it isn't the law of the land anymore???? Well?

  • Sevo||

    Tony|4.17.14 @ 9:42PM|#
    "Why is everything black and white with you guys?"

    Slimy shits who use the force of government to get their way kind of annoy me.
    Is that clear, slimy shit?

  • Hyperion||

    You can renounce your citizenship.... for a price!!

    One day in the future, I might say:

    Come and collect it, bitches.

    Pride cometh before the fall.

    Even from invisible sky god religions, wisdom can be found, for those who are looking.

  • craiginmass||

    So, Happiness and the General Welfare doesn't apply to people dying early, going bankrupt, public health and all that other stuff??

  • BigT||

    Are they in the Constitution? NO. So, fend for yourself. That's the deal the Founders struck, and for 150 years or so it produced the greatest growth in the history of civilization.

    I thought the General Welfare meant no law could be written for a specific person or persons, as was done in previous governments.

  • Sevo||

    craiginmass|4.17.14 @ 8:59PM|#
    "So, Happiness and the General Welfare doesn't apply to people dying early, going bankrupt, public health and all that other stuff??"

    Rhetorical question or stupidity?

  • politicsbyothermeans||

    I think we both know the answer to that.

  • PH2050||

    Totally surprised to see a Masshole that likes sucking government cock.

    /sarc

  • craiginmass||

    We higher income and higher educated healthier folks tend to have just slightly more centered views on the state of the world. Also, we don't live in a state that throws our own to the side of the road to "let 'em die".

    It's called civil society. You actually probably live in it, but then go online and pretend that you don't like it. Maybe you don't like it ...... but don't call yourself a Patriot if that's the case. There are lots of places where you can pay less in taxes than here and our "freedoms" allow you to move there.

    Funny thing - the great conservative bastion of SC was charging my family unbelievably high property taxes, vehicle taxes, etc. - the only difference from up north here is they GAVE YOU NOTHING for paying in the money, whereas here we get at least a bit of what we pay for.

  • Sevo||

    craiginmass|4.17.14 @ 9:03PM|#
    "We higher income and higher educated healthier folks tend to have just slightly more centered views on the state of the world."

    Gee, a new self-righteous twit to amaze us with his wonderfulness!
    Stuff it.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Funny thing - the great conservative bastion of SC was charging my family unbelievably high property taxes, vehicle taxes, etc. - the only difference from up north here is they GAVE YOU NOTHING for paying in the money, whereas here we get at least a bit of what we pay for.

    You mean a marathon bombing?

  • anon||

    You mean a marathon bombing?

    I like how everyone misses the point that confetti bomber dude could totally have killed people without the NSA/whatever knowing shit about it beforehand and how the whole idea of "war on terror" as being bullshit is just swept under the rug.

  • craiginmass||

    Oh, that's a "reasonable" reply. Are you sure you're on the right site? I think the Beckster is calling your name back..back.

    I guess it's easier to blame me for the Marathon bombing than it to explain why SC, as the fine example of everything small government, has horrible poverty, joblessness, disease, lack of education and all those other problems....

    But even that's not the point of the thread. Let's talk about the ACA. If it wasn't successful, you'd be jumping up and down. If it was successful, you'd be doing the same.

    Why bother? You are either part of the problem or of the solution. That's the difference between folks like you and I...some talk and some do things.

  • anon||

    I guess it's easier to blame me for the Marathon bombing than it to explain why SC, as the fine example of everything small government, has horrible poverty, joblessness, disease, lack of education and all those other problems....

    I'm going out on a limb here and going to say that you've never heard of the phrase "red herring."

  • anon||

    That's the difference between folks like you and I...some talk and some do things.

    Yes. I discuss my course of action rather than immediately resort to stealing from everyone else that happens to be in the same relative geographical position as I am.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Oh, that's a "reasonable" reply. Are you sure you're on the right site? I think the Beckster is calling your name back..back.

    I don't listen to "the Beckster"--that appears to be a particular fetish of yours, however.

    I guess it's easier to blame me for the Marathon bombing than it to explain why SC, as the fine example of everything small government, has horrible poverty, joblessness, disease, lack of education and all those other problems....

    No, just interesting to watch the cradle of the American revolution get folded into the fetal position by a couple of skinny yabbos with nothing more than a couple of kitchen utensils, some fireworks, and a knock-off Glock.

    And who said I'm blaming you for it? My, isn't your solipsism just precious?

    But even that's not the point of the thread. Let's talk about the ACA. If it wasn't successful, you'd be jumping up and down. If it was successful, you'd be doing the same.

    Considering the definition of "success" depends on the left's whims of the moment, I'll take that worthless piece of sophistry for what it's worth.

    Why bother? You are either part of the problem or of the solution. That's the difference between folks like you and I...some talk and some do things.

    Seems like you've been doing nothing but talking, and haven't really done shit.

  • Redmanfms||

    I guess it's easier to blame me for the Marathon bombing than it to explain why SC, as the fine example of everything small government, has horrible poverty, joblessness, disease, lack of education and all those other problems....

    Never been to South Boston I take it.

    Massachusetts' unemployment rate is a full point higher than South Carolina.

    Also, disease??? Uh, ok.

  • politicsbyothermeans||

    Don't look at the BLS for February... you might experience unbearable cognitive dissonance.

    I'm sure the good people of South Carolina shed a bitter tear when your Yankee ass hightailed back up to Taxachusetts.

    "That's the difference between folks like you and I...some talk and some do things." You realize you typed that on a thread on the internet, right? Perhaps you think of that as "doing things" but I'm sure most would classify that as "talk."

  • steedamike||

    Sort of late to the party here but...
    "We higher income and higher educated"

    According to Jonathan Haidt, libertarians are more educated. I believe this is the citation:

    http://reason.com/blog/2013/02.....tarian-jon

    I can't verify because I'm at work. Anywho, regardless of which group is more educated, it's sort of an a-hole maneuver to attempt to dismiss another side of an argument in this manner. I don't think you are doing your side of the argument any favors.

    FYI, Mr. Haidt is a liberal so it's safe for you to watch.

  • Sevo||

    craiginmass|4.17.14 @ 8:44PM|#
    "In the rear view mirror, Obama will be able to look at millions of real people whose lives were improved because of his decision to NOT do what is politically correct."

    Hmm. Typical lefty combo of stupidity and self-righteousness!

  • craiginmass||

    This lefty lived off the land for many years and signed up for the Free State Project a decade ago....

    Of course, "libertarians" can't seem to get anything together except personal attacks and changing the subject - which is why they will never get anywhere.

    Just saying. Reality should come into play at some point.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    This lefty lived off the land for many years

    Parking in a KOA campground during your childhood vacations doesn't count as living off the land.

  • Sevo||

    craiginmass|4.17.14 @ 10:31PM|#
    "This lefty lived off the land for many years and signed up for the Free State Project a decade ago..."

    So you're either a liar or a hypocrite?
    BTW, if you don't want 'personal attacks' you could lay off the bullshit; did your mommy say you were *special*?

  • craiginmass||

    When you get to a certain age and point in life....if you've had anything resembling a decent ride, you've done all kinds of things which may seem "hypocritical".

    I voted Perot. I joined the Free State project. I voted libertarian/green in some elections.

    This was before I saw the Libertarians go almost all-in with the GOP. That particular action - coincidentally quite hypocritical - pretty much showed me that they had no clue. The idea that the libertarians would elect a guy like McCain who wanted nothing more than endless war...boggles the mind. Any rational human being would see that Obama would be less likely to favor a constantly imperialistic war machine (just one example).

    We are all hypocrites. Many of you are probably typing or reading this on computers and networks invented by LSD-dropping hippies.

    Sorry to say, no BS involved. I lived with no electric, no plumbing and virtually no house (ramshackle) for 3+ years - in the hills of the south.

    Now I live the good life.....worked hard for 40 years getting there.

    If that's hypocritical, so be it. Point is, I'm not some trust fund junkie whose life was paid for by ancestors who got off the mayflower. My grandfather was a doorman in a building downtown.

    My family has worked hard, paid taxes and benefitted greatly from what this country provides (the commons).

  • politicsbyothermeans||

    Following the Grateful Dead around and eating out of dumpsters doesn't count.

  • sasob||

    Some things are more important than gold, greenbacks and winning elections.

    Oh really? Such as? You know ... gold and greenbacks represent a portion of one's time and effort - or life - if one came by them honestly. I, for one, happen to think my life, or portions of it, are just as important as those of any others.

  • BigT||

    Another interesting development in the UK...

    BBC belatedly grasps third rail of immigration. What took it so long?
    British broadcaster tackles divisive topic of immigration in a documentary that opens door to previously sidelined voices.

    On its face, the BBC's decision to air a new documentary on immigration to Britain seems unremarkable. The topic is stirring deep passions in the UK, as anti-immigration and anti-Europe sentiments surge across the country. So attention by the public broadcaster appears natural.

    In Pictures Global Migration
    But Tuesday night's documentary has also thrown the spotlight back on the BBC itself, as critics – including the documentary's editor – say the broadcaster has previously failed in its coverage of immigration over the past two decades, by not addressing criticism of pro-immigration policies due to liberal concerns about fueling racism.

    A BBC-commissioned review conducted last July found that the corporation did not adequately reflect the public’s concerns about immigration, and EU membership more broadly, because of a "deep liberal bias."
  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Politico gets an advance copy of Elizabeth Warren's new book.

    I suppose I should say, "Big heap book about big chiefs"

    http://www.politico.com/story/.....05799.html

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "I suppose I should say, "Big heap book about big chiefs""

    OK, that was hilarious.

  • PH2050||

    OK, that was hilarious

    And how!

  • Agammamon||

    Now see, *that's* hilarious.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    Don't know whether to yawn or scream. Yes, the figures are cooked. Obama's well-orchestrated smoke and mirrors game will collapse again in 2015. Whoever is left in the quasi-private sector will sue the Obama administration for breaking the law and maybe they'll win some face-saving victory in some court ...or there will be another setback in the courts that Reasonoid libertarians will attempt to rationalize away. Any money that Obama wasn't authorized to spend now will be legitimized in some face-saving Republicrat grand bargain next year. Libertarians continue to blame Republicans, Democrats will continue to win by losing, the country's fiscal situation will continue to go to shit.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Ganbarou!

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Chick Fil-A considering opening restaurants in New York. Politicians, echoing those come-to-New-York ads from Fox Business, unanimously approve acquiring these new businesses.

    Just kidding!

    "“We don’t need bigots coming to New York City,” Councilman Daniel Dromm, who is openly gay, told HuffPost. “They are not welcome here unless they can embrace all of New York’s diverse community, including the LGBT community.”...

    "“We don’t need bigoted people even keeping their opinions to themselves,” he said. “They need to wake up and see reality.”"

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....20387.html

  • SweatingGin||

    “They are not welcome here unless they can embrace all of New York’s diverse community"

    Including the bigots?

  • Tony||

    Nobody thinks bigots should be embraced. Well, except you guys apparently.

  • Derpetologist||

    It sure is interesting how suddenly everyone who works for Chik-fil-a is suddenly a bigot all because of one comment from the CEO.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    If the CEO of Starbucks declared that 2nd Amendment rights were abhorrent would you feel the same way?

  • Derpetologist||

    You see, this is why people call you Blue Tulpa.

    I still buy Starbucks products despite their anti-gun policies. And if the CEO started spouting that stuff, I'd still buy it. My relationship with Starbucks involves nothing more than the exchange of money for coffee. I don't care because Starbucks has no power to deprive me of weapons.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Good for you, but you do realize that many people reacted differently when the CEO of Starbucks said that?

  • Derpetologist||

    Yes, and I don't care.

  • SlV||

    Starbucks won't even ask you to leave if you're carrying. They politely asked people not to open carry because it upsets other customers. They don't post "no guns" signs that I'm aware of.

  • dinkster||

    People open carry at the star bucks in los Alamos and no shits were given

  • Hydra||

    If you're asking whether I would blame Starbucks employees for their CEO's beliefs, or work to coercively prevent Starbucks from opening because of the CEO's belief... the answer is no, I wouldn't do those things.

    You might want to think through these attempted GOTCHA questions before posting them next time.

  • Tony||

    They're gonna get their jobs. They're opening in NY. The councilman is just exercising speech, really.

    I'd never associate workers with the guilt of their employers, though certain Christianist employers seem to think they are entitled to force their bullshit Jesus crap on their employees and call it freedom, so there you go.

  • Derpetologist||

    Ah, I'm pretty sure Chik-fil-a does not have a Christians-only policy for either their employees or customers.

    I'm an atheist and I eat at Chik-fil-a every Saturday. That stuff is amazing.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I eat there regularly, food and service outstanding for a 'fast food' restaurant.

  • Agammamon||

    I'm pretty sure he means that not wanting to pay for an employees birth control and abortions is the same as forcing your religious beliefs on them.

  • anon||

    I don't want to pay for an employees fucking anything. Does that make me racist or something?

  • craiginmass||

    No, that makes you someone who should never hire anyone. Even slaveowners gave benefits.

  • Sevo||

    craiginmass|4.17.14 @ 10:30PM|#
    "No, that makes you someone who should never hire anyone. Even slaveowners gave benefits."

    Did your mommy tell you that was clever?

  • Sevo||

    Yeah,
    "up" - "down"; typical Tony lies.

  • wareagle||

    who's forcing beliefs on anyone? Well, other than govt forcing its value system on private companies.

  • wareagle||

    so you're here for an order of self-awareness since yours is clearly lost.

  • PH2050||

    I love it when proggie dumbfucks tell people to "keep their beliefs to themselves" yet the effect of their religious belief in the magical All-Father of government is NEVER kept away from ME.

  • Derpetologist||

    But that's completely different! It's not faith if we don't call it that!

    /derp

  • BigT||

    They are not welcome here unless they can embrace all of New York’s diverse community, including the LGBT community.

    A bigoted statement if ever there was one.

    But I'll agree, NY doesn't need more bigots. It's full.

  • ~Knarf Yenrab~||

    Someone should tell Mr. Dromm what a franchise is.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    How is that relevant?

  • ~Knarf Yenrab~||

    Grown-ups talking, child. Get back in the cellar.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Oh, come now elder, what is relevant about that? It is so simple that you could even explain it to a child, no?

  • ~Knarf Yenrab~||

    Try to understand that the owner and employees of a particular franchise do not necessarily share the personal opinions of the restaurant chain's founder.

  • anon||

    Wait, you mean it's possible to conduct a trade without some outside force compelling you to do so!? WHO'DA THUNKIT?!?

    Obviously not the federal government.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    “They are not welcome here unless they can embrace all of New York’s diverse community, including the LGBT community.”

    LOL at this. New York doesn't have "community" in any sense of the word, and it's already been shown that the more diverse a society is, the less of a community it actually becomes.

  • Hydra||

    They smell blood in the water after the Mozilla guy got forced out of his own company.

  • PH2050||

    Maybe if the "greatest generation" and their progeny wasn't already raping my wallet to pay for their medical care I would have some cash left to help pay for your medical care but guess what...no can do.

    I'm in the desired age group but fuck you greedy bastards, both young and old. You're not getting a dime out of me because I'm utilizing my veteran's exemption! Haha! Go get fucked, you bunch of thieving douchebags!

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    The greatest generation is mostly dead, dude. It's their vile progeny that we're dealing with.

  • PH2050||

    I'm blaming anybody who voted for any of this redistribution shit. I don't have a degree and work hard for low pay compared to the spoiled prog kiddies or the degenerate welfare scammers I deal with every day here in Denver yet Big Brother wants more, always more. Fucking tired of it.

  • anon||

    The greatest generation is mostly dead, dude

    The "greatest generation" will be the one that decides it's time to execute these tyrannical fucks.

    I still have hope.

  • Derpetologist||

  • BigT||

    And that is a bad thing??

  • ||

    I think the point is that by the standards of said generation, it is.

  • Derpetologist||

    The national myth is that they were all risking their lives to save the world from evil.

    Hanging out with hookers in Hawaii is not very heroic.

  • ~Knarf Yenrab~||

    Mutually beneficial economic activity is always heroic!

  • BigT||

    Over 400,000 guys got killed in WW2, and another 650,000 were injured. I won't begrudge them a quickie with a hooker.

    Many others risked their lives. I don't understand how anyone could belittle that.

  • Derpetologist||

    I don't belittle the ones who risked their lives. However, only a small percent actually did. And the cause they risked it for looks pretty questionable. It's not the US was in danger of being conquered.

    Were the B-17 mechanics risking their lives? That's not to say they weren't important. It just seems like a stretch to call them heroes.

  • anon||

    Oh my god you questioned the armed services! You're a terrorist!!!!!!!!!!111111111one

    /dunphy

  • Derpetologist||

    As penance, I will watch 3 episodes of M*A*S*H.

  • ||

    "Were the B-17 mechanics risking their lives? "

    Yes.

  • Redmanfms||

    And the cause they risked it for looks pretty questionable. It's not the US was in danger of being conquered.

    We weren't going to be invaded (except for the Aleutians and an attempt at Midway) so we didn't need to go to war.

    /derp

    I read some dumb shit in my days, but fuck me man. The Japs attacked us and killed several thousand people and the then the Germans declared war on us and immediately began attacking shipping along our coast.

    Are we only supposed to declare war if there is an imminent threat of invasion?

  • ||

    Dude, I think your job is to show us examples of derp concocted by others, not concoct it yourself.

    I had two great uncles in that war. One was in the Bataan death march. The other told me the reason he could not take me hunting was because he spent nearly "500 days never outside the sound of gunfire". He could not touch a gun or kill so much as an ant. He spent a week once where " I could not set my foot down anywhere without stepping on a body part. We stacked bodies in a creek once to make a bridge for our jeep.".

    Both of those guys were notorious poon-hounds and that does not diminish them in my eyes one bit.

    When death is all around you, when it is imminent, normal people respond by wanting to get laid.

    I know a Vietnam vet who told me when he was shot they put him in the 'death tent'. That is a tent for wounded who are not expected to survive. He said nearly every waking moment there he could hear the nurses in the back fucking their brains out.

    Normal response.

  • anon||

    When death is all around you, when it is imminent, normal people respond by wanting to get laid.

    Pretty sure you can just ditch the non-bolded part there.

    Wanting to get laid is ... pretty much what living organisms that must procreate to survive do.

  • ||

    Pointing out that the desire is intensified and the usual inhibitions reduced.

    I am not sure why Derpetologist is trolling us with this. Probably trying to provoke some derp for later study.

  • Derpetologist||

    Let me put it this way: A lot those guys who banged whores in WW2 or knew their buddies were doing it helped enforce anti-prostitution laws when they got older.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    A lot those guys who banged whores in WW2 or knew their buddies were doing it helped enforce anti-prostitution laws when they got older


    And a lot of hippies stoned on MJ during the 60s grew up to be soccer moms who are now the Drug War's greatest stalwarts. Who the fuck cares? Politicizing people to that degree will just make you miserable and bitter.

  • anon||

    He said nearly every waking moment there he could hear the nurses in the back fucking their brains out.

    And if I were on one of those death beds I'd have been jackin' it.

  • Derpetologist||

    Well, which is it? Are they heroes or regular guys who made the best of an awful situation?

    I'm not criticizing them for having sex with whores after getting drafted and yanked away from their normal lives. I am criticizing the people who try to canonize them with phrases like "the greatest generation."

    The "greatest generation" was full of assholes who gave us The War on Drugs, The Vietnam War, The Great Society programs, and a ton of other screw-ups.

    And keep in mind what Germany and Japan's "greatest generation" did.

  • Derpetologist||

    On a side note, I will add that the Merchant Marine was the branch of service with the highest casualty rate. I have yet to see a movie about the brave men of the Merchant Marine.

    I guess dying of hypothermia after your boat gets sunk would not be a very interesting movie.

  • ||

    You are exactly right. My grandfather was in the merchant marines and had some good stories, but none that would make a good movie.

    "Are they heroes or regular guys who made the best of an awful situation?"

    Yes. I think the second part of the question is the definition of the first part.

    "I am criticizing the people who try to canonize them with phrases like "the greatest generation.""

    Rightly so. Your initial example was pretty lame though. This is better: "The "greatest generation" was full of assholes who gave us The War on Drugs, The Vietnam War, The Great Society programs, and a ton of other screw-ups."

    Given the same difficulties I am confident that any generation of Americans would have done the same both in heroism and fuckups.

  • Derpetologist||

    "Given the same difficulties I am confident that any generation of Americans would have done the same both in heroism and fuckups."

    And that's why I say the phrase "the greatest generation" is bullshit.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Are they heroes or regular guys who made the best of an awful situation?


    I'd say that a good operational definition of a hero is a "regular guys who made the best of an awful situation", when making the best of an awful situation requires some baseline of courage and self-sacrifice.

  • Redmanfms||

    I'm not criticizing them for having sex with whores after getting drafted and yanked away from their normal lives.

    Actually, that is exactly what you were doing.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    The national myth is that they were all risking their lives to save the world from evil.


    They were. As I recall from being in the military, you don't get much choice in where you get deployed -- and risking getting deployed to Manila or to storm Normandy is about as close as it gets to "risking your life to save the world from evil".

  • ~Knarf Yenrab~||

    Our grandfathers...had sex!

  • SweatingGin||

    Sometimes as sloppy hundred-and-twentieth!

  • Derpetologist||

    And they wore onions on their belts- which was the style at the time.

  • Derpetologist||

    For those not familiar with the reference:

    http://www.hulu.com/watch/26211

  • anon||

    That's hilarious. Even when they're making the numbers up, they can't achieve them.

  • Sevo||

    Hey, nobody said the goal post has to be right over the football!

  • Ken Shultz||

    They keep coming up with phony metrics to celebrate.

    The purpose of ObamaCare was to make healthcare more affordable to more people.

    It wasn't to successfully launch a website.

    It wasn't to sign up some number of people.

    If ObamaCare fails to make high quality healthcare more affordable to more people, then it has failed.

    And on that topic...

    "The average individual deductible for what is called a bronze plan on the exchange—the lowest-priced coverage—is $5,081 a year, according to a new report on insurance offerings in 34 of the 36 states that rely on the federally run online marketplace.

    That is 42% higher than the average deductible of $3,589 for an individually purchased plan in 2013 before much of the federal law took effect"

    http://online.wsj.com/news/art.....1560398876

    Um...yeah. All those people whose plans (with lower deductibles) were cancelled and told to go fend for themselves on the exchanges, they're going to have to pay more for healthcare now--because of ObamaCare.

    And the rationing hasn't even really kicked in yet.

    But, hey, 8 million is a BIG number!

  • anon||

    If ObamaCare fails to make high quality healthcare more affordable to more people, then it has failed.

    But goddamnit Ken, that's just too logical. What are you, Vulcan?!

  • Ken Shultz||

    Nah, I'm just not mentally retarded.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzH10nvgCwA

    Oh, and more on the making high quality healthcare more affordable to more people front, there's also this story from the right-wing New York Times:

    "Health insurance companies across the country are seeking and winning double-digit increases in premiums for some customers, even though one of the biggest objectives of the Obama administration’s health care law was to stem the rapid rise in insurance costs for consumers."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01.....d=all&_r=0

  • anon||

    even though one of the biggest objectives of the Obama administration’s health care law was to stem the rapid rise in insurance costs for consumers."

    To be fair, somehow taxpayers aren't considered consumers by the Federal Government.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, I'm not qualified to understand their brand of genius.

    But I think I understand this:

    "Two months before health insurers must submit rate proposals for 2015 to government regulators, WellPoint Inc. (WLP) fired a surprising shot across their bow by predicting it may ask for “double-digit plus” increases."

    ...

    the 2015 rates will rise because of an expected reduction in government payments to insurers, he said. The payments, known as reinsurance, are intended to help ease insurance companies’ transition into the public exchanges.

    “On a year-over-year basis on our exchanges, and it will vary by carrier, but all of them will probably be in double-digit plus,” Goulet said."

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/.....-rise.html

    But, hey, 8 million?! That's a big number!

    Woooooo-HOOOOOOO!

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The payments, known as reinsurance, are intended to help ease insurance companies’ transition into the public exchanges."

    They call it "reinsurance"; I call it "squandering my future paychecks", but, hey, a rose by any other name...

    Hey look, everybody, a squirrel 8 million!

  • Ken Shultz||

    But, hey, 8 million!

    Yeeeeeee-HAW!

  • anon||

    dude, "million" is so 90's.

    It's trillions or nothing now. Get with the times!

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Premiums, man, premiums. See insurance takes the risk out. And deductibles, uh, er, let me get back to you on that.

    "Gruber, what the fuck do deductibles do?!" Barry asked.

  • tomhynes75||

    Let's run the numbers - how big is the problem in dollars?

    Let's say it should be 39 percent chumps - young healthy people who we can overcharge and it is only 28 percent chumps. We are missing 11% * 8 million, call it 900,000 chumps.

    How much can we overcharge a chump? My 29 year old son went from 100 a month to 200 a month. Call it $1,000 per chump per year.

    If we are missing a million chumps at $1,000 per chump, that is only a billion dollars, which is - wait for it - chump change. Even 3,000 per chump is only 3 billion dollars, which is really just noise in the total cost of healthcare which is about 3 trillion dollars. Even the high estimate it is 1/1000 of the total cost.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I think you're right to suggest that expecting millennials to make up for all the money providers lose on Medicare and Medicaid patients was a losing proposition to begin with.

    It's a question of magnitude.

    They weren't about to make up for all the people with preexisting conditions, who are charges on the insurers' earnings from day one, either.

  • Ken Shultz||

    That's why deductibles on the exchanges have gone up by 42% on average, right?

    That's partially why the insurers are asking for double-digit rate increases for premiums in 2015, right?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Nuh uh. Anal obstruction said they're not! Get ready for the spin when the new premiums come out. Or better yet, how much you wanna bet Barry plays with the risk corridors some more to keep the insurance execs in line?

    "We will now phase out the transition funding in 2018 since we've already saved so much!"

  • triclops||

    John is wrong. The Obama administration is totally going to get away with this. By making metrics of success and failure so muddy, it will all be seen as "he said, she said", and we know which side will get favorable coverage in those arguments. Tony and PB will never learn, and they will think they were proven right all along.

  • iEagleHammer||

    "Hey 18-34 year olds, we need to rip you off... come here and sign on this line."

    What an idiotic plan.

  • Despiser||

    And you can stay on your parents plan till youre 26...

    "The ACA isn't a Trojan Horse for Single Payer, it's right out in the open for all to see". ~Jacob Hacker 2009

  • Despiser||

    A couple trillion dollars could have gotten each of the 2 million new signups their own private doctors for life, and a house, and cars and food for life. What a HUGE success...

  • thorax232||

    We all knew it was going to be an embarrassing failure to begin with. The longer this socialism stays, the more despicable he looks.

  • Malvolio||

    I'm sorry, are we believing this number? Out of the same people who said you could keep your policy? From the people who sabotaged the census so no one can track the uninsured?

    I mean, look at the chart! Consistent underperformance until... it's too late to check.

    A politician's mouth is moving.

  • TallDave||

    And at least 8 of them have paid!

    Obama's so confident Obamacare is going well that he just rewrote the Census to make its effects impossible to measure.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement