80/20 RULE

[Juror#8]

So I am on record as being in support of much of the Affordable Care Act. I generally favor programs that help to sustain the less fortunate and abjectly impoverished so long is there is an aim, vision, goal, and it's sustainable, and it doesn't place an undue or unfair burden on the American taxpayer. Also, I tend to favor programs that profess to mitigate corruption amongst industries that deal in ensuring individual health and well being.

 

I'm also of the belief that people like the constituent parts of Obamacare. However body politic are largely dolts - so once a policy is demonized and becomes characterized as a pejorative, then it stays that way - even when, in essence, they agree with the sum if explained constituently. Or people just think "Dem - bad" even if the idea is novel and has potential to be improved upon.

 

There are a lot of cool little parts to Obamacare. I've conversed with folks who say that they hate Obamacare then later on in the conversation express delight that they can retain their 25 year old grad student daughter on their health plan. Weird huh? Isn't it a net positive that females can't be denied coverage any longer, or that pre-existing conditions cannot be the basis for a health coverage denial?

 

So that leads me to the thrust of this Friday night diatribe - the 80/20 rule. Basically:

 

"Health insurers must spend at least 80 percent of the money they collect in premiums on medical claims or improvements in health care quality and no more than 20 percent on everything else — administration, marketing, advertising, profits to investors, executive bonuses, etc."

 

AND

 

"If mandatory reports to state and federal monitoring agencies show a health insurer is spending too little on health care, the insurer is required to rebate the difference to health plan enrollees, either in the form of a check or as a discount on future premiums. Rebates to group health plans go to the sponsoring employer, with the expectation that the cost savings will be passed on to employees."

 

The 80/20 Rule took effect on January 1, 2011 and the first rebates are due by August 1, 2012.

 

With the rebate, will include this letter: http://cciio.cms.gov/resources/files/mlr-notice-1-to-subscribers-in-individual-market.pdf

 

Obviously note the timing of those letters. It will impact the election in some way.

 

More reading:

 

http://thepage.time.com/2012/05/11/sebelius-forthcoming-blog-post/

 

http://www.registerguard.com/web/opinion/28003760-47/health-rebates-care-insurance-insurers.html.csp

Edited May 12, 2012 by Juror#8

[3rdnlng]

So I am on record as being in support of much of the Affordable Care Act. I generally favor programs that help to sustain the less fortunate and abjectly impoverished so long is there is an aim, vision, goal, and it's sustainable, and it doesn't place an undue or unfair burden on the American taxpayer. Also, I tend to favor programs that profess to mitigate corruption amongst industries that deal in ensuring individual health and well being.

 

I'm also of the belief that people like the constituent parts of Obamacare. However body politic are largely dolts - so once a policy is demonized and becomes characterized as a pejorative, then it stays that way - even when, in essence, they agree with the sum if explained constituently. Or people just think "Dem - bad" even if the idea is novel and has potential to be improved upon.

 

There are a lot of cool little parts to Obamacare. I've conversed with folks who say that they hate Obamacare then later on in the conversation express delight that they can retain their 25 year old grad student daughter on their health plan. Weird huh? Isn't it a net positive that females can't be denied coverage any longer, or that pre-existing conditions cannot be the basis for a health coverage denial?

 

So that leads me to the thrust of this Friday night diatribe - the 80/20 rule. Basically:

 

"Health insurers must spend at least 80 percent of the money they collect in premiums on medical claims or improvements in health care quality and no more than 20 percent on everything else — administration, marketing, advertising, profits to investors, executive bonuses, etc."

 

AND

 

"If mandatory reports to state and federal monitoring agencies show a health insurer is spending too little on health care, the insurer is required to rebate the difference to health plan enrollees, either in the form of a check or as a discount on future premiums. Rebates to group health plans go to the sponsoring employer, with the expectation that the cost savings will be passed on to employees."

 

The 80/20 Rule took effect on January 1, 2011 and the first rebates are due by August 1, 2012.

 

With the rebate, will include this letter: http://cciio.cms.gov/resources/files/mlr-notice-1-to-subscribers-in-individual-market.pdf

 

Obviously note the timing of those letters. It will impact the election in some way.

 

More reading:

 

http://thepage.time.com/2012/05/11/sebelius-forthcoming-blog-post/

 

http://www.registerguard.com/web/opinion/28003760-47/health-rebates-care-insurance-insurers.html.csp

 

You actually came out of the closet a few months before I thought you would. You guys never fail. You pretend, but always let off that sickenley little smell of do'in the less fortunate. Shame on you #8. I've had discussions with you and we've been civil and been able to actually make some sense. This is beyond that.

[Alaska Darin]

I'm also of the belief that people like the constituent parts of Obamacare.

[GG]

He's right, some people like free stuff in Obamacare. Don't know why he's surprised that regulators would try to pin a random allocation formula on a totally unpredictable program like healthcare.

[Doc]

There are some good things, but most of it is bad and will only lead us down a path of ruin. We can't even sustain the entitlements we already have, and that haven't been adequately "tweaked" like some simps think we can do with Obamacare. And at best, those rebates will cover the increase in the increase in premiums over previous years.

[DC Tom]

Of course, the problem with the ACA isn't that it doesn't have a lot of things that people can feel good about. It's that it's not based in any sort of economic reality, and destined to fail. And fail expensively.

 

I still have yet to hear anyone support the ACA with anything more than a "But we passed reform! Doesn't it feel good?" Well, yeah...if feeling good was your goal. And yes, the health care system in this country needs reform. But...what if your reform sucks?

[Juror#8]

You actually came out of the closet a few months before I thought you would. You guys never fail. You pretend, but always let off that sickenley little smell of do'in the less fortunate. Shame on you #8. I've had discussions with you and we've been civil and been able to actually make some sense. This is beyond that.

 

Come out of what closet?

 

Because we disagree on a political point, or two, or three, there is an idelogical excommunication? There is a such thing as a moderate in this country. I'm definitely a moderate. What the republican party is succeeding at doing is alienating folks like me with an all or nothing partisan divide.

 

I happen to think that health care reform was long overdue and I was personally glad that someone tackled it. Why? Because the costs of people going to the emergency room for preventative maintenance and routine checkups was and is being spread to premium paying consumers in the form of higher prices, bigger deductibles, larger co-pays, and escalating premiums.

 

Something needed to be and needs to be done to curtail that. Obamacare is a start with some damn good ideas. It got the proverbial "ball" rolling. And I say that as someone who didn't vote for the man.

 

Again, what closet? I intended to vote for Roemer but will likely vote Romney (begrudgingly) because VA, where I'll be voting in November, is a swing state. Personally, I would rather have one horrible candidate (because Romney is !@#$ing incredibly pathetic) that I agree with 40% of the time, than a considerably more horrible candidate that I agree with 20% of the time.

 

Is that ok with you? I like the president personally and think he has some good ideas. I think he is a smart man, who tried his best to do a good job. Did I vote for him though, no!

 

So what does this have to do with my political or ideological sincerity? If someone admires a rainbow after a storm it doesn't make them an LGBT? Not everything is black and white. There is a grey area and a periphery. Why are conservatives so frightened by being infiltrated by diversity, or accommodation, or compromise, or conciliation, or imagination, or concurrence, or synthesis, or "different"? Do they want a choir? Sometimes it seems like people post things here to illicit the response that they were thinking anyway so as to affirm their extant sentiment. It's like an ongoing effort to convince oneself that because 20 people on a Western NY sports forums feel similarly, that represents a microcasm of the world at large or, at least, any sensible/rationale American. It couldn't be that the majority here are from Western NY, an area that is quite conservative politically. You want to soften that political erection, go to the poltical forum on the Redskins site. It's the invewrse of everything posted here. They have a '3rdnlng' who posts about the conservative media bias, and 8 threads a day about Bain, Seamus, haircuts, firings, Massachussets, corporate practices, George Bush, blah blah blah...

 

Newsflash - it's all wrong-headed. To be sure, on the Terps forum that I frequent it's the exact opposite. 90% are happy slappy progressive and I'm arguing the case for fiscal responsibility and devolution. They think the whole damn political universe thinks like they do because the 40 people who post there are pretty much in ideological lock step.

 

How about we have an honest debate (tomorrow, when I wake up, at 2) about what you do and don't agree with. I asked about the 80/20 rule and it became a indictment of my personal politics. Whether you like my type or not, I identify myself as a republican. I largely vote republican, and I have considerably conservative sentiments on some issues. Will I ever vote "D"? Maybe. But I like the vision of fiscal responsibility, self-awareness, autonomy, self-sufficiency, and the ideal of a reduced federal presence that the republicans advocate. I also like the altruism inherent in progressive politics.

 

But here is the rub: I feel that the overall conservative vision of self-sufficiency is more sustainable ideologically than a long term vision of politically mandated altruism. I'm just hoping that the current institutionalized altruism can hold up long enough for the conservative vision of self sufficiency to be implemented institutionally in a way that is, at least theoretically, attainable by all and doesn't create a permanent sub-class of humanity that goes hard core on some proletariat bull schit.

 

Anyway, we've always been civil. I appreciate that. Still don't know what is the "this" that is "beyond that."

Edited May 12, 2012 by Juror#8

[Juror#8]

 

I'm right. At the conclusion of this post, I site the evidence. I don't expect a response from you or anyone else for that matter because you're just advancing the PPP wisdom that:

 

1. You are correct.

2. When you are not correct, see point #1.

 

But if you're interested in edification, check out the polls and get back to me so that we can discuss how you were incorrect.

 

You see, unlike you, my understanding of politics is comprised of more than Fox News punditry and the anemic voices of bigotry, stereotype and bias that constitute your friend network (not talking race here). As I mentioned earlier - you REALLY have to step away from this belief that the opinions here reflect the overall domestic sentiment on ANYTHING, whatsoever. This place is an echo chamber. There are a few independent voices, some on the left, some moderate - but the lion share of substantive opinion that is expressed here on a daily basis is decidedly right of center - like "just-to-the-left-of-anarchy" right of center.

 

If you don't make it a point to hate everything done by this WH, or if you try to rationalize policy bases - you're "with them." That is why nothing can get get accomplished legislatively in this piece. Because everyone is positioning for the next election - such that the effort to effectuate anything becomes secondary to trying to be voted into a position of power so as to be next in line to get nothing accomplished 4 years hence.

 

And you idiots willingly submit to this fraud. That's why they laugh at you. You're a puppet show to these folks. And instead of endeavoring to do something about it, you'd rather reply to substantive points with queer-ass smilies that further evidence that you don't have a fu(king clue. It would be more productive to have a conversation with someone actively sniffing latex paint because at least then there is entertainment value in the person's cluelessnes as a result of their myriad physiological changes. And though you hail from Alaska, that's not even a good excuse...because they have newspapers there, and even dial up internet by now.

 

Anyway, you blithely responded to my comment with an idiotic (though not entirely suprising) smilie. So here, again, is the support. I already know that NO ONE will respond to it. Why? Because it will disrupt your paradigm. You'd rather not amend what you consider to be a perfectly good hypothesis.

 

Here is the truth AK, despite what your idiot uncle may have told you about life, you don't have all the answers and your small community of peers is likely ill equipped to trustee for the rest of the country. The "truth" is somewhere in between me and you with neither of us being any closer than the other but with one of us certain that they are. 3rdnlng was critical of me for being supportive of certain provisions of the ACA. Well what about the identified Republicans in the following polls? Are they all in the closet for liking certain provisions?

 

My original point was that MANY people, in some cases a strong majority, like the constituent parts of Obamacare. You "lol'd." Well, here ya go:

 

http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/upload/8285-F.pdf

 

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/02/24/rel4ha.pdf

 

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/24/cnn-poll-health-care-provisions-popular-but-overall-bills-unpopular/

 

http://pollingmatters.gallup.com/2012/03/paradox-of-affordable-care-act-and.html

 

http://doubledippolitics.com/2012/03/25/polling-shows-people-support-majority-of-obamacare-parts-oppose-law/

 

And on the first link above, in the Kaiser poll, for 12 pages of polling data it talks about how the country dislikes Obamacare. But on page 10, it segments the bill and the polling becomes very instructive.

[dayman]

Healthcare reform is not "good." Healthcare reform is necessary. The 80/20 rule is good. Pushing back the date kids can stay on the plan is not only good, but in the modern state of things is necessary. The mandate is of course necessary to not denying preexisting injuries and of course a Republican idea and an Obama compromise (don't tell the crazy ignorant that though). Reform is a process and will take this plan, implementation, fine tuning, over the course of years. We must start with this, and then continue to work on it. But no, some idiots think there exists some magic reform that we could just work out and know it would work brilliantly. Others may even go as far as to deny any reform is necessary (the truly lost). Props to you topic creator, just know you aren't alone. "Killing it dead" is just backwards and the kind of thing that Romney is just dead wrong on.

Edited May 12, 2012 by TheNewBills

[DC Tom]

Healthcare reform is not "good." Healthcare reform is necessary. The 80/20 rule is good. Pushing back the date kids can stay on the plan is not only good, but in the modern state of things is necessary. The mandate is of course necessary to not denying preexisting injuries and of course a Republican idea and an Obama compromise (don't tell the crazy ignorant that though). Reform is a process and will take this plan, implementation, fine tuning, over the course of years. We must start with this, and then continue to work on it. But no, some idiots think there exists some magic reform that we could just work out and know it would work brilliantly. Others may even go as far as to deny any reform is necessary (the truly lost). Props to you topic creator, just know you aren't alone. "Killing it dead" is just backwards and the kind of thing that Romney is just dead wrong on.

 

Damn. And you accuse others of spewing talking points.

[dayman]

Damn. And you accuse others of spewing talking points.

 

Stay ignorant on this subject DC...stay ignorant.

[Doc]

Healthcare reform is not "good." Healthcare reform is necessary. The 80/20 rule is good. Pushing back the date kids can stay on the plan is not only good, but in the modern state of things is necessary. The mandate is of course necessary to not denying preexisting injuries and of course a Republican idea and an Obama compromise (don't tell the crazy ignorant that though). Reform is a process and will take this plan, implementation, fine tuning, over the course of years. We must start with this, and then continue to work on it. But no, some idiots think there exists some magic reform that we could just work out and know it would work brilliantly. Others may even go as far as to deny any reform is necessary (the truly lost). Props to you topic creator, just know you aren't alone. "Killing it dead" is just backwards and the kind of thing that Romney is just dead wrong on.

No, it needs to be killed dead.

[Magox]

 

 

http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/upload/8285-F.pdf

 

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/02/24/rel4ha.pdf

 

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/24/cnn-poll-health-care-provisions-popular-but-overall-bills-unpopular/

 

http://pollingmatters.gallup.com/2012/03/paradox-of-affordable-care-act-and.html

 

http://doubledippolitics.com/2012/03/25/polling-shows-people-support-majority-of-obamacare-parts-oppose-law/

 

And on the first link above, in the Kaiser poll, for 12 pages of polling data it talks about how the country dislikes Obamacare. But on page 10, it segments the bill and the polling becomes very instructive.

 

Of course those elements of the health insurance bill poll well, those are the benefits. Who doesnt like benefits? However, once you factor in the unintended consequences of the conglomeration of those benefits and the rest of the bill, people dont like it.

 

Im sure if you took a poll that asked:

 

1) Do you like that the bill will cost over a trillion dollars over the next 10 years?

 

2) Do youlike that the bill will end up causing some people to have to drop their own doctor for another one?

 

3) Do you like that the bill will cause more uncerainty in the economy, therefore possibly slowing the economy down?

 

4) Do you like that the bill will cause an even larger shortage of primary care doctors, therefore making your doctor visits even longer than what they are today?

 

5) Do you like that the bill will add to the deficit? (and dont bring that CBO score that was based on input provided by Democrats in order for it to not add to the deficit, we all know that it will)

 

6) Do you like that the bill will raise taxes?

 

People wouldnt respond favorably.

 

I could go on and on. The point is that those poll tested portions that you linked is a bit silly to bring up. I mean think about it, who is going to say that they don't like benefits?

 

Also, THENEWBILLS says

 

Healthcare reform is necessary.

 

Sure, I believe its necessary, but that doesn't mean any legislatively crafted Healthcare reform is necessary. It needs to be done right, and other than the total cost of the bill and the potential economic risks it poses to the economy, the biggest area where this bill fails is bending the cost curve of health care. People and businesses need relief with the cost of health insurance premiums, and no, that does not mean more subsidies to offset those rising premiums. If there is one thing that rational thinking people have learned about increased subsidies, is that it adds to the price of the underlying subsidized product.

 

The way you bend the cost curve is by addressing the cost of health care, not by reforming the health insurance industry, which is what this bill attempts to do.

 

It was a horrible piece of legislation, that struck out on cost, premiums and the potential negative impacts on the economy.

 

I'd much rather scrap this bill and start over.

Edited May 12, 2012 by Magox

[DC Tom]

Stay ignorant on this subject DC...stay ignorant.

 

Says the guy positing "Hey, it's good reform because people like it!" and completely ignoring the complete lack of any economic reality in its basis. How do you expect, precisely, the ACA to "reduce health care costs" and increase access to care simultaneously? Then explain how that's supposed to happen when the ACA only addresses health insurance, and does so in a way that in effect caps supply without managing demand in any sense.

 

People have tried that kind of economic planning and management before (the German steel industry in the late-30s springs most immediately to mind). Invariably, that form of "managed market competition" leads to either badly planned rationing, or collapse. Or both.

 

But yeah...good plan. Because it's "reform", and "reform" was necessary. Even if it's a completely bull **** and bass-ackwards reform, it's still reform, and reform is good. And gosh-darn it, people like it!

 

And I'm the ignorant one, while you're arguing based on consumer polls. Go figure.

[jjamie12]

So I am on record as being in support of much of the Affordable Care Act. I generally favor programs that help to sustain the less fortunate and abjectly impoverished so long is there is an aim, vision, goal, and it's sustainable, and it doesn't place an undue or unfair burden on the American taxpayer. Also, I tend to favor programs that profess to mitigate corruption amongst industries that deal in ensuring individual health and well being.

 

Do you think the ACA will bring health care costs down in a meaningful way?

[DC Tom]

Do you think the ACA will bring health care costs down in a meaningful way?

 

Doesn't matter. People like it.

[Alaska Darin]

I'm right. At the conclusion of this post, I site the evidence.

Do you? Do you actually "site" it?

I don't expect a response from you or anyone else for that matter because you're just advancing the PPP wisdom that:

 

1. You are correct.

2. When you are not correct, see point #1.

 

But if you're interested in edification, check out the polls and get back to me so that we can discuss how you were incorrect.

I don't care about polls. Polls are devious tools that are used by politicians and their minions to reshape public opinions and herd people in a direction.

 

Most "polls" ask very simple questions and look for very simple responses. The one thing they don't do AT ALL is detail. Because if they did, they'd likely show that over 90% of the people who respond have no !@#$ing clue what they're talking about. Congrats, you have "sited" some polls that give validation to your "opinion". That's quite a feat in today's Information Age.

You see, unlike you, my understanding of politics is comprised of more than Fox News punditry and the anemic voices of bigotry, stereotype and bias that constitute your friend network (not talking race here). As I mentioned earlier - you REALLY have to step away from this belief that the opinions here reflect the overall domestic sentiment on ANYTHING, whatsoever. This place is an echo chamber. There are a few independent voices, some on the left, some moderate - but the lion share of substantive opinion that is expressed here on a daily basis is decidedly right of center - like "just-to-the-left-of-anarchy" right of center.

Yeah, you "site" some polls. Polls responded to by people who watch the same for profit media streams and are able to blindly regurgitate the five or so talking points that Pelosi, Obama, Reid, etc use to scare the public into sheepdom. Then Fox responds in kind. So it's more than a little hypocritical for you to use these polls and then B word at someone who disagrees with you because there's a possibility they don't follow the same media masters you do.

 

At the end of the day, "Affordable Care" is no different than the "HMO Act of 1977". It won't reduce costs, won't improve efficiency, and there will still be a similar percentage of people who will be without coverage . What it will do is create a larger bureaucracy at every level of government and create some more drones. It's going to look a lot like the "Drug War" and the "War on Terror". There are still drug addicts and terrorists and all the **** associated with each. But hey, you and a whole bunch of other drones are spun up, so that's a win for the politicians because it keeps you from noticing how !@#$ed we really are.

 

I don't watch Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, etc. I'm not a Republican or a Democrat and I don't vote for either party. Everyone who disagrees with you isn't automatically "right wing". Some people just think you're !@#$ing stupid. I'm one of those people.

If you don't make it a point to hate everything done by this WH, or if you try to rationalize policy bases - you're "with them." That is why nothing can get get accomplished legislatively in this piece. Because everyone is positioning for the next election - such that the effort to effectuate anything becomes secondary to trying to be voted into a position of power so as to be next in line to get nothing accomplished 4 years hence.

I'm glad "nothing is accomplished legislatively" and I didn't like the previous administration, either. Again, being against bad laws and unConstitional legislation isn't part of either party's lexicon. You have to be able to think for yourself to understand this simple concept.

 

And you idiots willingly submit to this fraud. That's why they laugh at you. You're a puppet show to these folks. And instead of endeavoring to do something about it, you'd rather reply to substantive points with queer-ass smilies that further evidence that you don't have a fu(king clue. It would be more productive to have a conversation with someone actively sniffing latex paint because at least then there is entertainment value in the person's cluelessnes as a result of their myriad physiological changes. And though you hail from Alaska, that's not even a good excuse...because they have newspapers there, and even dial up internet by now.

/irony

Anyway, you blithely responded to my comment with an idiotic (though not entirely suprising) smilie. So here, again, is the support. I already know that NO ONE will respond to it. Why? Because it will disrupt your paradigm. You'd rather not amend what you consider to be a perfectly good hypothesis.

In your dreams.

Here is the truth AK, despite what your idiot uncle may have told you about life, you don't have all the answers and your small community of peers is likely ill equipped to trustee for the rest of the country. The "truth" is somewhere in between me and you with neither of us being any closer than the other but with one of us certain that they are. 3rdnlng was critical of me for being supportive of certain provisions of the ACA. Well what about the identified Republicans in the following polls? Are they all in the closet for liking certain provisions?

You're right, my community of "peers" is very small. There aren't many people who have lived all over the world , are able to look at things critically, and understand what the possible long term consequences of action or inaction are. We're far more equipped to "trustee" for the rest of the country than you and the rest of the drones.

 

I don't care about 3rdnlng, Republicans, you, Democrats, or polls.

My original point was that MANY people, in some cases a strong majority, like the constituent parts of Obamacare. You "lol'd." Well, here ya go:

 

http://www.kff.org/k...load/8285-F.pdf

 

http://i2.cdn.turner...2/24/rel4ha.pdf

 

http://politicaltick...ills-unpopular/

 

http://pollingmatter...re-act-and.html

 

http://doubledippoli...rts-oppose-law/

 

And on the first link above, in the Kaiser poll, for 12 pages of polling data it talks about how the country dislikes Obamacare. But on page 10, it segments the bill and the polling becomes very instructive.

Congrats on being able to Google or hit whatever partisan page gives you the information that's compiled to support your argument. I'm sure some Republican drone is willing to spend the time refuting those with polls of equal value.

 

Enjoy getting what you wish for.

[DC Tom]

If you don't make it a point to hate everything done by this WH, or if you try to rationalize policy bases - you're "with them." That is why nothing can get get accomplished legislatively in this piece. Because everyone is positioning for the next election - such that the effort to effectuate anything becomes secondary to trying to be voted into a position of power so as to be next in line to get nothing accomplished 4 years hence.

 

And you idiots willingly submit to this fraud. That's why they laugh at you. You're a puppet show to these folks.

 

Actually, most of Darin's "peers" are entirely the opposite. We bemoan the political cycle that prioritizes reelection over any form of legislative progress. That's why people argue about most of this administration's policies. They're not rationally based, they're electorally based.

 

Which, of course, is why you can only support them by quoting popular polls.

[Doc]

Do you think the ACA will bring health care costs down in a meaningful way?

No it won't.

[Juror#8]

Do you? Do you actually "site" it?

 

I don't care about polls. Polls are devious tools that are used by politicians and their minions to reshape public opinions and herd people in a direction.

 

Most "polls" ask very simple questions and look for very simple responses. The one thing they don't do AT ALL is detail. Because if they did, they'd likely show that over 90% of the people who respond have no !@#$ing clue what they're talking about. Congrats, you have "sited" some polls that give validation to your "opinion". That's quite a feat in today's Information Age.

 

Yeah, you "site" some polls. Polls responded to by people who watch the same for profit media streams and are able to blindly regurgitate the five or so talking points that Pelosi, Obama, Reid, etc use to scare the public into sheepdom. Then Fox responds in kind. So it's more than a little hypocritical for you to use these polls and then B word at someone who disagrees with you because there's a possibility they don't follow the same media masters you do.

 

At the end of the day, "Affordable Care" is no different than the "HMO Act of 1977". It won't reduce costs, won't improve efficiency, and there will still be a similar percentage of people who will be without coverage . What it will do is create a larger bureaucracy at every level of government and create some more drones. It's going to look a lot like the "Drug War" and the "War on Terror". There are still drug addicts and terrorists and all the **** associated with each. But hey, you and a whole bunch of other drones are spun up, so that's a win for the politicians because it keeps you from noticing how !@#$ed we really are.

 

I don't watch Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, etc. I'm not a Republican or a Democrat and I don't vote for either party. Everyone who disagrees with you isn't automatically "right wing". Some people just think you're !@#$ing stupid. I'm one of those people.

 

I'm glad "nothing is accomplished legislatively" and I didn't like the previous administration, either. Again, being against bad laws and unConstitional legislation isn't part of either party's lexicon. You have to be able to think for yourself to understand this simple concept.

 

 

/irony

 

In your dreams.

 

You're right, my community of "peers" is very small. There aren't many people who have lived all over the world , are able to look at things critically, and understand what the possible long term consequences of action or inaction are. We're far more equipped to "trustee" for the rest of the country than you and the rest of the drones.

 

I don't care about 3rdnlng, Republicans, you, Democrats, or polls.

 

Congrats on being able to Google or hit whatever partisan page gives you the information that's compiled to support your argument. I'm sure some Republican drone is willing to spend the time refuting those with polls of equal value.

 

Enjoy getting what you wish for.

 

So basically you don't agree because you don't agree and any support will always be the product of some scam to convince you that what you're already convinced of is not the case.

 

It's the adhominem defense and it's cyclical. If you begin with the principle that everyone is lying to you, you've already established your basis for disagreement and an "out" for every situation.

 

Gallup, CNN, Kaiser, Real Clear Politics (which is an aggregation of Rasmussen, CNN, CBS, NBC, Washington Post, Fox, Gallup and possibly some others) are all lying to you and they just cherry picked data to advance an agenda to take your guns, tax you incessantly, and give your money to colored crack fiends.

 

You're better left to Alaska, confortably apart from those who may "hurt" you, in drunken bliss raving about the coming apocalypse, Ruby Ridge, Manchurian Candidates, and implanted data chips, before you inevitably pass out and have to be carried home by your wife.

 

You can't debate with someone who sets as a groundrule that anything after the word "go" is a lie.