Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Snowmassguy
Trad climber
Calirado
|
|
Nov 26, 2013 - 04:11pm PT
|
Speaking of handouts...I bought a Starbucks coffee and doughnut for a homeless women that was begging this AM .
Handed her the coffee/doughnut and she screamed at me/caused a scene that I was an idiot because I failed to add cream and sugar.
Oh well, I tried to be nice. She probably had mental issues or other issues. Im sure Obamacare will solve her problems
Government "handouts" are a problem because they are administered by the inefficient government.
We certainly need healthcare change in the US but the current ACA plan is going to fail....sorry.
Thats ok, just blame the political party that you do not align with and call it good.
Problem solved the stupid American way.
|
|
Snowmassguy
Trad climber
Calirado
|
|
Nov 26, 2013 - 10:23pm PT
|
What I am is consistently correct
When history proves you wrong Hedgy it will be the fault of these wingnuts you constantly reference...correct?
Seriously, I think your name is listed under the definition of "wingnut"
"Wingnut" (sometimes "wing-nut") is used in United States politics as a political slur referring to a person who holds extreme, and often irrational, political views (see Hedge)
|
|
Snowmassguy
Trad climber
Calirado
|
|
Nov 27, 2013 - 12:37am PT
|
But of course, that's perfectly rational, because Obama scares you, therefore whatever you pull out of your ass must be true
FACT: You'll be proven wrong beyond even your ability to deny it, then you'll just move on to the next topic you'll be proven wrong about, then you'll deny that till you can't anymore, then you'll just move on, then you'll be proven wrong again, then you'll deny................................
Yep you are certainly the definition of a wingnut. Rational thought is NEVER your approach.
It really does amaze me that someone can singularly look at viewpoints with singular and partisan approach. Dudes like you are why this country is F'd.
Better hope your future Obamacare policy covers full mental health bene's
|
|
Snowmassguy
Trad climber
Calirado
|
|
Nov 27, 2013 - 12:57am PT
|
HAHA Yep, California is the model of government efficiency.
You are funny....or delusional.
|
|
Larry Nelson
Social climber
|
|
Nov 27, 2013 - 05:13am PT
|
jghedge wrote:
we are, in fact, the model for the nation.
Leaving aside the blind partisanship of the above statement that refers to government efficiency, this link illustrates how that statement just might be wrong and shows how California has just delayed $68 Billion of extra debt, but for all the wrong reasons.
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/11/26/rube-goldberg-legal-system-derails-ca-bullet-train/
//
California’s bullet train boondoggle was sucker punched yesterday, as a Sacramento Superior Court judge blocked $68 billion in bond funding. The same case saw a separate ruling allowing the state to spend $3.4 billion in federal cash for the project, while a second case (same judge) rejected the rail authority’s request to issue $8 billion in bonds that voters approved in 2008. The judge ruled the project would need to meet various mandates, compliances and environmental clearances before the funding stream can be allowed to flow.
The convoluted rulings are yet another sign that California’s toxic regulatory and legal environment makes any public works project slow, expensive and Pyrrhic:
“They’re stymied,” said Michael J. Brady, a Redwood City lawyer for the plaintiffs. Brady interpreted the ruling to mean that the project can’t move forward until the state identifies where its funding will come from and obtains environmental clearances on its proposed 290-mile “usable segment” from Merced to the San Fernando Valley.…
Rod Diridon, a former Santa Clara County supervisor and one-time high-speed rail board chairman, said the ruling will likely make the project more expensive and take longer to finish. But he insisted it won’t stop the project.
We’ve long argued that the train is an awful idea, but it looks like it’s starting to fail for all the wrong reasons. It would be good to see some common sense shape a consensus that the project’s exorbitant costs and marginal utility make it not worth the while. But no, the train is being derailed by red tape.
Opponents of the plan won’t find much to cheer in the rulings; they’ll just extend deadlines, complicate the process and drive costs up even higher. One of the reasons America can’t build much these days is that our legal and regulatory systems have gradually morphed into insane Rube Goldberg contraptions. It takes years and even decades, not to mention millions and billions in legal costs and project delay costs, to get anything significant done.
Our legal systems are increasingly so cumbersome, so slow and so expensive that they are a serious drag on productivity and growth. Just as teachers unions oppose reforming public schools that cost too much and do too little, professors and administrators fight to preserve a dysfunctional university system, and a multitude of vested interests drive up costs in the health system, the “legal system lobby” is more interested in the financial health and social power of its members than in the public good.
The next generation of Americans will have to take on the difficult but necessary task of overhauling some of the nation’s basic systems. They were good enough for the 20th century, but they aren’t working well enough now.//
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
Nov 27, 2013 - 08:12am PT
|
Trains are a bad idea..More freeways , over-population , unaffordable gas prices , air pollution , and log-jams are a much better solution...Damn those rules and regulations..
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Nov 27, 2013 - 09:47am PT
|
I'm honestly astounded, even given Joe's past posts, that he can read that article as he has. "Model for the nation?" Huh?
What that article actually SAYS is that CA pulled itself back from the brink of disaster BY raising taxes AND cutting social programs (for which there is now "pent up demand"). AND the article flatly states that if these spending programs are reinstated, the 9+billion dollar "surplus" will quickly evaporate and again CA will go plunging as it did before.
So, if Joe is advocating the CA before its basically "austerity measures," then I'm saying: LOOK at what happened to CA, and let's not do likewise as a nation! But if Joe is advocating the CA DURING its "austerity measures," I would say: YES, and look at how CA came back from the brink that its now "pent up" social programs pushed it to. MORE social programs are not HOW you seek solvency!
But liberals can literally quote an article that SAYS that what are now "pent up" social programs ARE the potential snafu for CA remaining solvent; and somehow liberals read that liberalism was the SALVATION of the state.
This one honestly amazed me!
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
Nov 27, 2013 - 09:53am PT
|
Anybody who thinks California government is not better off without those Orange County-style caveman Republicans is living in denial, or just refusing to acknowledge reality. Jerry Brown has pissed off just about everybody, which means he's doing a good job.
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
Nov 27, 2013 - 10:02am PT
|
California's biggest problem is over-population...Too many people and a huge black-market economy where taxes are not collected ...When the working poor don't have money they don't buy consumer goods and revert to social programs a drain on the haves...We make our drivers take test to get a license and we should make parents pass a test before they make a baby...Our politicians should be made to pass a stringent US history test so they don't keep repeating the same mistakes...
|
|
Larry Nelson
Social climber
|
|
Nov 27, 2013 - 10:10am PT
|
Gary wrote:
Jerry Brown has pissed off just about everybody, which means he's doing a good job.
I agree that Jerry Brown is doing as good a job as is possible given the one party rule of present day Ca. He is unconventional and free thinking, unlike most party partisans.
This hi-speed train could be a good idea at the right time, in the right place, and with a sound financial plan, but this is more likely a political payoff at a bad time fiscally.
Now about those lavish prison guard pensions...Oh wait, a health care forum, yeah!
|
|
Larry Nelson
Social climber
|
|
Nov 27, 2013 - 10:28am PT
|
Back to health care in California
http://healthpolicyandmarket.blogspot.com.br/2013/11/trying-to-make-sense-of-covered.html
Monday, November 25, 2013
Trying to Make Sense of the Covered California Numbers
I've read a number of reports in recent days gushing over the progress Covered California is making leading the nation in signing up people for Obamacare.
But, I am having trouble understanding how the numbers should make anyone gush with enthusiasm.
Covered California, the state health insurance exchange, has a goal of enrolling 500,000 to 700,000 subsidy eligible Californians by March 31, 2014.
Covered California just announced that it would proceed with its original plan to cancel 1 million existing individual policies (their estimate)––80% of them by December 31.
The only place a Californian can buy a policy with a subsidy is on the Covered California state exchange.
So, it would certainly seem that the only way those people eligible for a subsidy can continue their coverage and get a subsidy is to sign-up on the California health insurance exchange––80% of them by December 23.
So, if only the canceled policyholders who are subsidy eligible replace their canceled policies Covered California will be well on their way to making their 2014 enrollment goal. Doesn't sound like much of a stretch goal for them.
Besides the 1 million who have lost their policies because of cancellation, Covered California has estimated that 5.3 million Californians are uninsured and eligible to purchase coverage on the state exchange––about half with subsidies.
Covered California is spending $250 million in federal grant money on a two-year "outreach" campaign to get people signed up. Covered California has been awarded a total of $910 million in federal grants to fund its operations and outreach. New York, the second highest state, has received $400 million.
Through mid-November, Covered California has enrolled about 80,000 people. Its director characterized his state's enrollment saying, "We're seeing much larger numbers than we expected."
The Washington Post, in a story headlined "There's a 'November Surge' in Obamacare Enrollments," reported, "California led the bunch [state-run exchanges]; the state's enrollments have grown steadily in November and now account for nearly a full third of all health law sign-ups. The state has had its strongest two weeks of enrollment this month."
So, let's summarize:
California has 5.3 million uninsured eligible to buy in the exchange with half estimated to be subsidy eligible.
California is cancelling another 1 million people of which Covered California has estimated hundreds of thousands will qualify for a subsidy they can only get if they go to Covered California. At least 80% need to act by December 23 to avoid losing their coverage.
The state is spending $250 million in federal money to get people signed up––dramatically more than any other state.
The Covered California goal is to sign-up 500,000 to 700,000 subsidy eligible people by March 31.
Why should we be so impressed with Covered California because they have signed-up 80,000 people so far? Or, even that their goal is to sign-up 500,000 to 700,000 of the state's 6.3 million people––half subsidy eligible––who are uninsured or having their insurance canceled?
Looking at these numbers, if they don't have well more than 500,000 people signed up by December 31, I would have to think the number of uninsured in California would have grown.
Am I missing something here?
Posted by ROBERT LASZEWSKI at 12:09 AM
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
Nov 27, 2013 - 11:12am PT
|
Hedge works in a world of make-believe.
Spoken with authority, One man's make believe is another's Theology.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
Nov 27, 2013 - 11:25am PT
|
So whether it's healthcare or tax reform or government spending we will have to rid our government of loons like you who will not compromise and find common grounds to ensure what's being done is being done in the best interest of the people of this country.
Congress, For instance?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Nov 27, 2013 - 11:36am PT
|
Well, the last spree of Joe-posts has banished my amazement regarding the previous article. Okay, I'm ready for anything now.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Nov 27, 2013 - 11:55am PT
|
Except reality, apparently.
Ahh... ROFL. That was a GOOD one! Touche', and I am humbled and totally put in my place. I bow to your quick wit, which really serves the purpose of convincing me of the validity of your arguments.
Or, we could talk about the fact that CA survived BY radically ratcheting back its social programs and that bringing them back WILL pitch CA off the cliff yet again. We could talk about CA's radical debt and that a "budget surplus" does NOT equate to being out of debt. We could talk about actual policies and their effects. Or, we could just play the drive-by shooting game some more.
|
|
Snowmassguy
Trad climber
Calirado
|
|
Nov 27, 2013 - 11:56am PT
|
And deranged wingnuts can literally believe that made-up quotes and imaginary statistics are factual, because anything resembling reality refutes their failed ideology!
This Hedge statement pretty much describes him perfectly. Hedge = wingnut that constantly fabricates imaginary statistics to support his failed wingnut ideology.
Too funny.
|
|
mucci
Trad climber
The pitch of Bagalaar above you
|
|
Nov 27, 2013 - 12:20pm PT
|
I sure as f*#k don't welcome it.
$400 increase with a 4k increase in my deductible.
Hmmm, keep trudging up the BS hedge
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Nov 27, 2013 - 12:25pm PT
|
Weinberg predicts many people who are losing their policies will come out ahead — even if their premiums go up — because of lower deductibles, full coverage of preventive care and no penalties for pre-existing conditions. What's more, he says, health insurance will almost certainly be cheaper for those who qualify for subsidies. In California, that's an estimated 2.5 million people.
Weinberg can "predict" anything, but that doesn't make it real.
In point of FACT, what millions are finding is that they do NOT "come out ahead," because their deductibles and co-pays increase, and they are forced to buy "coverage" for things irrelevant to them.
And note that Weinberg "predicts" that 2.5 million people will "almost certainly" be cheaper because they will qualify for subsidies. Two points:
1) "Almost certainly" is the best that can be said, which is pretty weak, and even that best case only affects 2.5 million out of about 38 million.
2) The "success" predictions are only remotely reliable regarding the people that will receive subsidies. For the middle class families that were buying their own insurance and will not qualify for subsidies, their net health care costs will "almost certainly" go up, and this is BY DESIGN! Somebody has to pay for all this, and BY DESIGN that is going to be the middle class.
So, "predict" glory all you want, and tout the textbook cases of "success" all you want, but the ACA is designed to be paid for by the middle class; and that will prove to be a vast mistake.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|