Jeepster80125
-
Content Count
6,721 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Jeepster80125
-
-
I think the repubs have something up their sleeve, probably some revelation on maes that could force him to withdraw. Although, if he's smart he stays in to punish his party, because fuck them if they can't get a viable candidate, try harder next time assholes. If he withdraws, so does tancredo and the repubs run whoever they decide. I don't think this is quite over.It's happening in the Delaware Senate race too. The moderate GOP candidate is a lock.....but he is looking like he might lose the primary to some Palin clone.....who is projected to get waxed in a general election....and even John Cornyn admitted that the GOP can't take back the Senate without that seat.Thanks for the 100 bucks BG. -
-
Unless Maes drops out, which he shouldn't, then Tancredo has pretty much solidified support for hickenlooper. gg.http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?sto...0&catid=339I hate politicians, so this stuff is just awesome to me. Repubs never thought Maes would win, now repubs are withdrawing support in the hope that Maes drops out. Repubs won't win with Maes and Tancredo both running.Tom Tancredo cannot win a general election (you cannot win in politics by saying incredibly controversial and sometimes crazy things) and if all three candidates are on the ballot the Democrat will win by default with 40-45% because Tancredo will siphon the far right and immigration buffs from a group that was never voting Dem anyway.I honestly believe the GOP will blow 5-7 seats in this manner in the fall. Just enough to keep the Dems in control of both houses which kinda sucks. If the GOP took over the House and the Dems kept the Senate, that would be perfect. -
That's just semantics.From the NY Times article: Seriously?? The irony in this is just mind boggling. Cordoba was conquered by a muslim army and they made it into the capital of their frigging caliphate.
-
We know you're a bush nuthugger.Bush and Katrina:5 days before landfall, Bush government officials asked the governor to declare an evacuation.3 days later the governor was still consulting with the legal department of her administration to decide if this would make the governor's office of being liable for any business lawsuits for loss of revenue. The last train to leave New Orleans was virtually empty. We all remember the pictures of unused school buses in flooded parking lots.FEMA was made available to 3 states, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. Two of them took advantage of the help, and minimized the damage and results of Katrina. New Orleans and Louisiana did not.Bush pleaded with the governor to release the National Guard. She asked instead that Bush send in the US military. This is against the law, so Bush told her again to call up the guard. She vacillated for days, so the Bush White House did some fancy paperwork to declare Gen Honore' a National Guard commander in order to legally allow him to take over the national guard troops that the governor had failed to request for days after Katrina. Once he was on the ground things got done.Afterward the Bush administration had meetings to meet with the affected states, Mississippi had a clear mission, clear requests, (which were all met). New Orleans had no specific request, no leadership, and no plans.The people in neighboring states got federal relief money, cleaned up and moved forward in a matter of months. New Orleans took years. -
I agree, but that's the easiest way for me to ask you this question. My next question would be where you draw the line, what your definitions are etc, because I still think you're using selective interpretation with regards to your views, but I guess everyone does that to a degree. I'm not even sure what 'selective interpretation' means, it's just the easiest way for me to convey what I feel like I'm observing.There's a difference between how we treat each other and the social contract that we all take part in so that we can have a functioning government. I don't believe that I can force you to pay me money on demand, but I believe the government can in the form of taxes. Without that, society wouldn't work. I believe that people should treat people with respect and dignity, and government should exist to allow us better to do that. There's no selective interpretation. But lets keep the healthcare in another thread. -
That's fine, but you also advocate an individual mandate along with socialized medicine. Where do you draw the line between here (leaving them the fuck alone), and things like sodium requirements and san fucking fransisco (fucking with my life directly). I'm curious because it seems like you're selectively interpreting what you're for and against, kind of BG style. Respectfully.What they're missing is the concept that we should live in peace with those who want to live in peace with us, and we should let people do as they will so long as it doesn't harm others. They should still be allowed to build a Mosque if no Muslims died in the towers. They should be allowed to build a Mosque no matter what Osama bin WhoCaresdin thinks, or what some backward people hiding in mountains thousands of miles away think. -
I can't wait for the lefties here to complain when cuts are maid to medicare, when their parents start having problems getting covered under obamacare.
complete story at link.How ObamaCare Guts MedicareThe president's pledge that 'If you like your health plan, you will be able to keep it' clearly does not apply to America's seniors.The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has attacked Senate Republican candidates for wanting "to end Medicare as we know it." And in Nevada's hotly contested Senate race, Majority Leader Harry Reid is attacking Republican Sharron Angle, saying she wants to "gut" Medicare. But Mr. Reid has already gutted it. He and his colleagues did so by passing ObamaCare. ...These draconian cuts in Medicare payments to doctors, hospitals and other health-care providers that serve America's seniors were the basis for the Congressional Budget Office's official "score"—repeatedly cited by the president—that the health-reform legislation would actually reduce the federal deficit. But Mr. Obama never disclosed how that deficit reduction would actually be achieved....The drastic reductions in Medicare reimbursements under ObamaCare will create havoc and chaos in health care for seniors. Many doctors, surgeons and specialists providing critical care to the elderly—such as surgery for hip and knee replacements, sophisticated diagnostics through MRIs and CT scans, and even treatment for cancer and heart disease—will cease serving Medicare patients. If the government is not going to pay, then seniors are not going to get the health services, treatment and care they expect.Mr. Foster reports that two-thirds of hospitals already lose money on Medicare patients. Under ObamaCare it will get much worse. Hospitals also will shut down or stop serving Medicare patients. -
-
The same could be said of you.LOL.your ignorance is hilarious. your prejudice is pathetic. -
For fuck's sake.Sebelius calls on health insurers to stop misinformation and unjustified rate increasesWASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius wrote America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the national association of health insurers, calling on their members to stop using scare tactics and misinformation to falsely blame premium increases for 2011 on the patient protections in the Affordable Care Act. Sebelius noted that the consumer protections and out-of-pocket savings provided for in the Affordable Care Act should result in a minimal impact on premiums for most Americans. Further, she reminded health plans that states have new resources under the Affordable Care Act to crack down on unjustified premium increases.The text of Sebelius’ letter is below.Ms. Karen IgnagniPresident and Chief Executive OfficerAmerica’s Health Insurance Plans601 Pennsylvania Avenue, NWSouth Building, Suite 500Washington, DC 20004Dear Ms. Ignagni:It has come to my attention that several health insurer carriers are sending letters to their enrollees falsely blaming premium increases for 2011 on the patient protections in the Affordable Care Act. I urge you to inform your members that there will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases.The Affordable Care Act includes a number of provisions to provide Americans with access to health coverage that will be there when they need it. These provisions were fully supported by AHIP and its member companies. Many of the legislation’s key protections take effect for plan or policy years beginning on or after September 23, 2010. All plans must comply with provisions such as no lifetime limits, no rescissions except in cases of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of material fact, and coverage of most adult children up to age 26. New plans must comply with additional provisions, such as coverage of preventive services with no cost sharing, access to OB / GYNs without referrals, restrictions on annual limits on coverage, a prohibition on pre-existing condition exclusions of children (which applies to all group health plans), access to out-of-network emergency room services, and a strengthened appeals process. And health plans that cover early retirees could qualify for reinsurance to sustain that coverage for businesses, workers, and retirees alike.According to our analysis and those of some industry and academic experts, any potential premium impact from the new consumer protections and increased quality provisions under the Affordable Care Act will be minimal. We estimate that that the effect will be no more than one to two percent. This is consistent with estimates from the Urban Institute (1 to 2 percent) and Mercer consultants (2.3 percent) as well as some insurers’ estimates. Pennsylvania’s Highmark, for example, estimates the effect of the legislation on premiums from 1.14 to 2 percent. Moreover, the trends in health costs, independent of the legislation, have slowed. Employers’ premiums for family coverage increased by only 3 percent in 2010 – a significant drop from previous years.Any premium increases will be moderated by out-of-pocket savings resulting from the law. These savings include a reduction in the “hidden tax” on insured Americans that subsidizes care for the uninsured. By making sure insurance covers people who are most at risk, there will be less uncompensated care, and, as a result, the amount of cost shifting to those who have coverage today will be reduced by up to $1 billion in 2013. By making sure that high-risk individuals have insurance and emphasizing health care that prevents illnesses from becoming serious, long-term health problems, the law will also reduce the cost of avoidable hospitalizations. Prioritizing prevention without cost sharing could also result in significant savings: from lowering people’s out-of-pocket spending to lowering costs due to conditions like obesity, and to increasing worker productivity – today, increased sickness and lack of coverage security reduce economic output by $260 billion per year.Given the importance of the new protections and the facts about their impact on costs, I ask for your help in stopping misinformation and scare tactics about the Affordable Care Act. Moreover, I want AHIP’s members to be put on notice: the Administration, in partnership with states, will not tolerate unjustified rate hikes in the name of consumer protections.Already, my Department has provided 46 states with resources to strengthen the review and transparency of proposed premiums. Later this fall, we will issue a regulation that will require state or federal review of all potentially unreasonable rate increases filed by health insurers, with the justification for increases posted publicly for consumers and employers. We will also keep track of insurers with a record of unjustified rate increases: those plans may be excluded from health insurance Exchanges in 2014. Simply stated, we will not stand idly by as insurers blame their premium hikes and increased profits on the requirement that they provide consumers with basic protections.Americans want affordable and reliable health insurance, and it is our job to make it happen. We worked hard to change the system to help consumers. It is my hope we can work together to stop misinformation and misleading marketing from the start.Sincerely,Kathleen Sebelius
-
I know we've moved on to the hypothetical stupid girl.fwiw, my roommate had a serious b/f five years ago, and never planned on having the house by the time she got ass****ed by the ARM. Her two renters pay her mortgage, so her losing her job wasn't really a huge problem. She's got a fantastic rack, and bitches can bartend fucking anywhere. She's single now, the market sucks, and she definitely can't afford the new mortgage, even though she knowingly signed the contract five years ago. She's most definitely okay with having shitty credit, since she wants to move to florida with mom and dad to go to college. She could refinance if she wanted, but she won't. She could sell the house and take the loss, but she won't. The only way the house will sell is if it lowballs the other half dozen on our street, which she is too proud to do. She knows the bank will get reimbursed it's loss by tarp. She's a savvy bartender so of course she doesn't report her income, and as a result doesn't pay proper taxes. Nice.I thought she walked away from it because she lost her job and couldn't afford the payments anymore and it wouldn't make any sense to sell since she would still have a debt that she couldn't afford to pay. Is there any amount of hardship that one can endure to make walking away ethical?Renting a house is not a simple process and is not something just anyone can do. And we don't know that she can just take two bad jobs. Don't make this just about this specific person, make it about a hypothetical person. Single mom, no friends or family to fall back on, didn't lie on her application, lost her job...now is it "ethical" for her to walk away? -
If an employer stops providing benefits, there is no underlying medical plan for the COBRA to continue coverage. If the medical plan goes away, so does the COBRA. Each state is different, as COBRA is over 20 employees, so small employers will be affected differently. Our state has 'continuation' that mirrors cobra for smaller employers. Also, if an employee hasn't been on the plan for longer than six months (high turnover employees etc), then they don't qualify for cobra or continuation. Lucky for my clients, we already had an additional high risk pool/safety net program called cover colorado. Once again, there were already options in place for people to get coverage, obamacare just puts more barriers in place and limits the options of sick people. It's disgusting.Wouldn't the employee be able to be covered under COBRA for the 6 month period and then be able to get the government coverage? Or is COBRA going to be nonexistant under the new legislation?
Notice how obamacare has ceased to be an talking point for democrats. A lot of dems are distancing themselves from this because of the backlash. With two elections between now and 2014, hopefully we'll see some changes to the really really bad parts of this legislation.Yes, the fines are supposed to help finance the federal program, but the fines are way way too low, the will barely even pay for a month of coverage. Guess who pays the rest. And that cost is not included in the cost estimates of ObamaCare. How's that budget neutral thing look now?(And that's not to mention Jeep's explanation, which is by far the most detailed I've heard.... keep them coming.) -
Well, the 'right' thing to do, in my opinion, would be to not lie on a mortgage application. It seems like anyone who isn't looking to take advantage of the system would think enough to not lie about their income. But, she was only looking to make a buck since the market was solid and she didn't have to prove her income. I might have made the same decision that she did, but I'm not in her shoes so I don't know. Honestly, it's more of a liberal/conservative thing, I think. She hates bush, loves obama but can't be bothered to vote. She thinks the government should pay for her health care, including a boob job. She thinks the government should pay for her education, but she gets mad at how high her taxes are. What do you think the 'right' thing to do is?When I say that I fail to understand, it means I don't understand her logic. I can see what she's doing, I don't understand how she sleeps at night. But I'm pretty sure mk's head asplode when he thinks that BG actually believes the tripe he repeats here and in the religion forum. Maybe kinda similar.Do you think it's ethical for people to walk away, knowing they won't ever have to pay that money? Using my example.What do you think the "right" thing for her to do was?Also, what do you mean, you fail to understand how she thinks she can just walk away? Kind of seems like she did just that. -
Except that she has no intention of repaying the money she signed a contract for, it seems like you are, you know, honoring the contract you signed.My transmission went out and I owe more than that cost on the car, so I have to put the balance of my current loan on my new car. I understand this, and I accept it as part of owning a car. I fail to understand how my roommate thinks she can just walk away from her mortgage because she lost her job, the market sucks, and she made a shitty investment decision five years ago. Our family does fix n flips on the weekends. I'm torn, because we get fantastic deals in this shitty economy, but it's more difficult to sell houses in this shitty economy. Our market segment is fine though, we got a full price contract from the first couple who walked through. That graph is pretty good.At least she is "only" down 46K ... we paid 378, owe 320, and it was appraised at 225.Maybe one day it will be even again and we can look at selling. Other than that we have to wait until the balance matches the appraisal. Because we are responsible people. -
It's all good. It's difficult for me to get offended in this thread when it's so difficult to get good info. I'm even hearing different interpretations of obamacare from different carriers. It's nuts.To answer your question, theoretically, assuming that 'fine' goes directly to pay for uninsureds, it's a fine idea. Realistically though, since our current system is employer based, when that employer based coverage goes away, there is no options except a public program. The program created under obamacare, gettingUSCovered, only covers people who have been without coverage for six months or longer, it doesn't apply to the employee in our example. So, if the group plan went away and the employee is unhealthy, then they'd have to go without insurance for six months before they can qualify for the free federal program. I can think of a half dozen clients where there is a serious cancer type medical claim. I have one client who has an employee with end stage kidney failure. What is he going to do if he loses the group coverage?Pass it so we can see what's in it. Why would they put this six month limitation in the legislation if the goal was to increase coverage? Anyone?Also, people with insurance already contribute a portion of their premium to a fund that provides care to uninsured. Do you see that sick people were actually better off before obamacare?Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't the "fine" supposed to subsidize coverage to individuals who aren't getting the coverage through emplyment, thus increased coverage because it is affordable to those people now, even though they aren't getting it through their employer.BTW I am NOT a fan of Obamacare ... just asking a question. -
Now that we passed it and are seeing what's in it.Things are changing rapidly, but it's starting to appear that this whole 'grandfathering' of health insurance plans is going to be difficult for small employers to deal with. Basically, if you want to keep your current coverage ('grandfathered'), it's going to be nearly impossible to qualify for discrimination requirements, even though they might be legal currently. For example, it's very expensive to provide coverage to part time, seasonal, and high turnover employees, so we see management carve-outs, where only salaried managers and owners are eligible for coverage. Take a Dairy Queen for example (hi brv). That owner wants to reward his loyal managers and maybe full time employees, and of course his spouse and family. Currently, he can 'discriminate' between classes of employees, full/part time etc. This is a good thing. Moving forward, if that owner makes any changes to his current plan and loses 'grandfathered' status, he then must provide coverage to every single employee, even the hourly workers, even the high turnover positions, etc. It's going to be more affordable for employers to pay the fine instead of provide coverage for their employees. How does this increase coverage? LLY? This is just a small example, but something that will affect nearly every small business owner in a negative way. What are sick people going to do if they can't find group coverage?But hey, go obamacare.
-
My roommate is a bartender who lied on her application for a $206,000 mortgage, 5 year ARM, in 2006. They never verified income, and she never should have qualified. She figured she could sell the house for a profit sometime in those first five years. She recently got fired, and has stopped paying her mortgage. She's okay with the credit hit, and the bank will be reimbursed by TARP and taxpayers like me. Hers is now the 8th house for sale on a 16 house street, and is worth $165,000.It's infuriating.It's similar with health insurance and reform. It's our job to find out how to bend the rules for our clients. For example, there are tons of restrictions for self-employed people to get group insurance, but it's much easier once there are 2 employees. So we have our married, self employed clients pay the spouse minimum wage, 24 hours a week, and then we qualify as a 2 person group which opens the client's options immensely.Person comes in "I want to buy a home I can't afford." Bank "Really? I have a way for you to do that, that coincidentally also leaves me with no real risk. Furthermore, I am required to do this for you by law. Lets get to it." A lot of this went away when Fannie and Freddie tightened up lending standards, which still aren't all that stringent, but it's better. What would you do if you could do a transaction with virtually anybody, make money off that transaction and then someone else would finance all the risk from the transaction no problemo? Well, you would do that transaction as fast as humanly possible. It's really not all that complicated- it's the job of a business to make money within the confines of the rules that are presented, as much fun as it is to villify that's just reality. -
You fuck sheep. nice.He likes my rhythm.RegardsDL -
Any relevant bible verses that you could quote?Also, what are your thoughts on the single square method?You must or you would use paper like the rest of us do.RegardsDL -
Are you saying that our current models are anywhere near accurate, or are you just saying they're less inaccurate than before?"Global warming" was essentially formulated in the 1970's and 80's. There have been massive technology advances since then, the most important being that computers became powerful enough to be able to simulate a complex dynamical system. This totally changed the kinds of predictions about climate change that scientists were able to make from simple "its getting warmer" to "when it gets warmer, we can expect these kinds of widespread effects". -
Group insurance trends 12-20% each year, this year it's on the higher end. Individual insurance trends slightly less at 5-15%. Some of my individual clients have seen 40-50% increases.You all can act like healthcare reform doesn't have an immediate effect on rates, but that's a foolish position to take. It's ridiculous to assume that we won't see increases in premiums as a direct result of this legislation. Before healthcare reform was passed, we were seeing the lower side of that trend.Moving forward, the only way employers will save money is by keeping 'grandfathered' plans with current benefits, instead of new plans that require very expensive benefits. Removing annual caps is fine but it raises rates, and it doesn't make sense for everyone. Right now, grandfathered vs non-grandfathered plans will be roughly the same cost, but in 2 years, non-grandfathered plans will likely be 25-50% less than healthcare reform-compliant plans. It's pretty ignorant to assume that we'll make cuts to medicare to pay for healthcare reform. Does anyone actually think that we'll make cuts there? LLY? The only way we'll pay for healthcare reform is by increasing rates. Period. I can tell you that my commissions come from the same pool of money as the carrier profits, and as a direct result of healthcare reform, my commission structure will be cut by roughly 20%. Again, as a direct result of this legislation. I have enough alternate revenue streams that it's not a huge hit to me personally, but not many people can stand a 20% hit to annual revenues. Cane would be surprised that I'm not in agreement with him that all insurance carriers are evil.Not saying that it might not be true but just because they say the reason is one thing doesn't mean that it is. Pretty convenient to blame the Health Care Reform for any increases that they want in their rates.What were the percentage increases in previous years before the Reform was passed ? -
Employees often don't appreciate the contribution that employers make on their behalf with regards to healthcare. It used to be that the benefits package is what separated similar employers, now everything is less transparent. Good for you that you're offering coverage instead of bonuses, your families with medical conditions thank you.I hope you're using an agent for your insurance needs instead of working direct with your carrier. Make sure you're current agent is a member of the national association of health underwriters. If not, find a better agent through nahu.org. A good agent will save you bunches of money. One of our older clients has documented saving millions of dollars on their health coverage since 1977 by making various changes with our help. It's obscene that people try to do this themselves.I make no claims to be a Health care cost expert. I only pay 80% the bill for approx. 105 families that work for me. that being said every three years we rebid out healthcare coverage. Step one is to get base increase from our existing contact to see if we want to stay there or shop around (changing companies is a real pain in the ass). Preliminary numbers are calling for a 22 percent rate hike in premiums starting on 2010...when asked why we were told it is a direct cause and effect of the national health package. We will shop it arpound but at the minimum we are going to get 15 percent increase.Thanks Barak, Nancy, Barney and the rest. There are now 105 people that are not going to be getting raises this year end or they will be reduced quite a bit. The best part is the people will be mad at me....see health care is free so I am just being greedy.I am sure this will go a long way to help jump starting the economy...maybe I should go hire somebody...no that would be wrong. The best way is to sub work to a guy who has less then 50 and he doesn't have offer private insurance, he has lower pay scale for his workers compared to mine. That will be good for everyone, his prices are lower, my profit margin is better and the little guy gets screwed!! By the demorcats....AGAIN. LOL people are so silly. -
I'm torn between the light weight of particle board versus the quality and longterm usage of hardwood. Hardwood is a huge pain to move up and down stairs.I've been ironing off bad Walnut veneer for the past few hours from this very old antique chest of drawers I found in the trash (thrown out because the veneer binding and veneer surfaces themselves were in a very shabby state). It's a two week project, but when it's done, I'll have a beautiful chest of drawers (the structural material is all hardwood) and can keep my clothes in that, rather than the 'four hampers' method I presently use to separate clean from dirty. I'll post pictures in a bit.The method I use to detach shitty veneer is as follows. I use a cabinet scraper to breach as much of the surface varnish as possible. Then, I cover the raw veneer in rags soaked in a mixture of hot water and white vinegar. Then, I go over the whole thing with an old clothes iron... This is usually enough to get the underlying hide glue to loosen up. I then attack the edges by carefully peeling up the veneer with a small chisel, then more iron and steam into the seam I'm working on peeling up, then more peeling, more steam, more peeling. I use small stacks of nickels taped together to wedge between the veneer and structural wood to impart a constant, upward pressure against the veneer as I go along... More iron and steam, more peeling, more nickels, more peeling. Sometimes, when peeling, if the veneer starts to detach from veneer sheet and stick to the wood, I use a small 1/4" chisel to peel it back.. The method promoted online is just "wet rags, iron and peel" but I've found this to be totally inadequate and not sufficiently comprehensive to effect the desired outcome. My own method is much better.
Universal Health Care...
in Politics, Economics and News
Posted