The Official Obama Scorecard Thread

[CaneBrain 95]

Logic fail.

Heh.They produced a copy of his birth certificate. Not sure what else people want.

[dapokerbum 0]

GODDAMMIT

[Balloon guy 158]

So they handled it the best way possible? I'm just speaking of what I would have done had I been in that same stupid argument. I would have grabbed my birth certificate out of the safe in my house and had it put in a frame and hung it around my neck so people would just STFU about it. I mean it's not really a big deal to show your birth certificate is it. Unless his name on the certificate is Hussein ....

I used to think this must be the reason.Now I know the real reason.His mother's first name is Stanley

[brvheart 1,752]

Logic fail.

When I first read his comment I, of course, knew that he would be ripped on for that, since it's so obvious. But on a survey bubble sheet "not even a little" might translate to a strong double negative and thereby imply that Obama did just the opposite of what I said, thereby: "about as good as possible".

[Balloon guy 158]

When I first read his comment I, of course, knew that he would be ripped on for that, since it's so obvious. But on a survey bubble sheet "not even a little" might translate to a strong double negative and thereby imply that Obama did just the opposite of what I said, thereby: "about as good as possible".

Well I hope you two can agree on that.

[dapokerbum 0]

I used to think this must be the reason.Now I know the real reason.His mother's first name is Stanley

His mothers a big black dude that works at a paper company?

[strategy 4]

"Anytime somebody starts in with that hopey changey BS, I just tell them about the heat death of the universe."

[Spademan 94]

Nearly all of you are fucking idiots.I'm not even going to tell you why, because even more than this, it's a waste of keystrokes.

[mk 11]

/thread

[strategy 4]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/07/21/...-protection-act

Here are 10 aspects of the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act you may not know about -- the online attention-deficit version.

I <3 obama.the provision about the end of taxpayer funded bailouts worries me a bit. he obviously needed to have something to that effect, but does he let it tie his hands if we need another round of bailouts during his reign? which is more politically -EV, a meltdown or a broken promise that will become the focal point in the next election?the truth of the matter is that we're still going to be prone to needing bailouts for a number of years.

[strategy 4]

another thing I hadn't considered: there's no way the "no more bailouts" language could apply to the GSEs.

[mk 11]

yes, i really, really wish he'd stop saying that. it reeks of 'read my lips....' and will probably come back to bite him in the arse similarly.

[hblask 1]

Here's a discussion of this disaster financial bill (podcast, playable below the picture of the dorky-looking guy):http://www.cato.org/dailypodcast/podcast-a...podcast_id=1198

[Jeepster80125 0]

another thing I hadn't considered: there's no way the "no more bailouts" language could apply to the GSEs.

If it doesn't happen before 2014, then health insurance companies will absolutely be 'bailed out' when they become unprofitable, which will happen sooner rather than later depending on how many people enroll in obamacare. Despite cain's wishes, health insurance companies employ too many people and there are too many unions (kaiser) involved for them to go under. imo.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

http://www.cato.org/dailypodcast/podcast-a...podcast_id=1198

Transcript for those too lazy to listen to a podcast...?

[CaneBrain 95]

If it doesn't happen before 2014, then health insurance companies will absolutely be 'bailed out' when they become unprofitable, which will happen sooner rather than later depending on how many people enroll in obamacare. Despite cain's wishes, health insurance companies employ too many people and there are too many unions (kaiser) involved for them to go under. imo.

Rats.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

depending on how many people enroll in obamacare

I don't understand what this means. What is Obama care in the sense that one can enroll in it? The government isn't selling insurance. Are you referring to collectives?

[Naked_Cowboy 0]

Transcript for those too lazy to listen to a podcast...?

The bill carves out special (positive) treatment for Freddie and Fannie backed securities, which were a primary source of junk securities that got us in a lot of this problem in this first place. Bill does nothing to address the issues and incentives that caused banks to make loans they shouldn't make in the first place. Bill misses a lot of opportunities to help and encourage de-leveraging by banks and individuals that are over leveraged.

[Jeepster80125 0]

I don't understand what this means. What is Obama care in the sense that one can enroll in it? The government isn't selling insurance. Are you referring to collectives?

It's complex, and you never engaged me with your post on why health care is so expensive for old people.I'll give you a short version now, but feel free to ask me to explain any part of what I'm about to post.When I say obamacare, I am specifically referring to the parts of it that will ensure the destruction of insurance companies as we know them. I won't bother with sources unless you ask. I might be off on some small details but I know I'm right in general.This starts with limiting profit margins via the medical loss ratio. Do you understand that insurance companies already have small profit margins, in line with grocery stores? The only reason you see headlines about "Insurance companies make billions" is because they are so large and encompass such a large part of our healthcare. Do you really think there are insurance companies denying legit claims, pocketing deep profits or something like that? Cane hates insurance companies because of his personal experience with a denied claim and shitty care for old people, two problems that aren't addressed with obamacare, yet cane appears to support obamacare?I am talking about individual insurance which is medically underwritten and more affordable for you as a consumer. I am not talking about employer driven healthcare, which won't change much. Look at the cost of group coverage versus individual coverage. The reason individual coverage (in colorado) is more affordable is because it doesn't cover things like maternity, and if you have pre-existing health conditions, you will be denied. But that's not a big deal because there are safety net programs in place for those types of people, ours is called cover colorado. It's expensive though, but it covers everyone who can't get covered elsewhere. Insurance is a state issue so things might be different in new york or wherever you live.Next, obamacare forces insurance carriers to cover everyone regardless of health. I am totally okay with this, but the only way this works is if everyone is required to carry insurance while they are healthy, to subsidize costs when you are unhealthy. The reason obamacare will force insurance carriers to fail, is because this individual mandate isn't enough to reuire people to enroll in insurance until they are about to have a big claim. Do you understand this?The government is now telling private insurance companies how to do business, that's why obamacare will force private insurance carriers out of business.Now, understanding that insurance carriers will be forced to cover everyone, any idiot can see that utilization will increase substantially, so the only way insurance carriers will be able to stay in business is to raise rates, right? As it stands, insurance carriers are required to get rate increases approved by that states' department of insurance. Now, the government is stepping in and saying that rate increases have to be approved by someone other than the department of insurance, like some government employee knows better than the department of insurance. Do you see how insane this is? Look at massachusetts, where they attempted to deny something like 250 of 275 rate increases. Do you really think insurance carriers will operate at a loss?They'll just stop doing business in the states where they have high utilization.There is no need for government insight, regulation, or anything else. Can you make a case for socialized medicine?Cliff Notes: obamacare is healthcare reform. Starting in 2014, anyone can call an insurance carrier and get covered. So you'll have young healthy people like wang, who won't justify having insurance when they are healthy, signing up for coverage in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. He'll get enrolled, have a claim, then drop coverage. The insurance carrier foots the bill. Do you realize how this is a problem? Look at the statistics for places like massachusetts for people who carry insurance for 3 months or less. Those are the people with high claims etc. What do I need to clarify?

[Jeepster80125 0]

Right now, there are two crises in our healthcare system. Access and cost. Healthcare reform/obamacare does a little to address access, but it adds a new crisis, one of quality.We're going to start seeing people unhappy with the plans they have. If carriers can't increase rates, they'll drop benefits. There are only so many special state mandates that states can require insurance carriers to cover.There are tons of examples of how healthcare reform creates rules that are meant to screw carriers. Right now, summary documents for insurance plans run 10-15 pages, and these documents explain every possible explanation of how the policy works. They are there for comparison purposes, called summary plan descriptions. The new legislation creates the requirement that these documents can't be longer than 4 pages. Why the hell would legislation require something like that? In my opinion, it's because insurance carriers can't put policy limitations on 4 pages, so the requirement is aimed at creating problems with insurance carriers who try to save costs by limiting coverage.If you are arguing guarantee issue or that insurance carriers should cover everything, then I disagree and I would like an explanation. I would love to hear why you think obamacare/healthcare reform are good for us as a country. Or anyone else. I would argue that we need major, major reform, but this legislation doesn't address that, it only moves us closer to government subsidized/administered healthcare, like medicare and medicaid. Is your position that we need more of those types of programs, are you saying they are run better than the private sector?

[CaneBrain 95]

Right now, there are two crises in our healthcare system. Access and cost. Healthcare reform/obamacare does a little to address access, but it adds a new crisis, one of quality.We're going to start seeing people unhappy with the plans they have. If carriers can't increase rates, they'll drop benefits. There are only so many special state mandates that states can require insurance carriers to cover.There are tons of examples of how healthcare reform creates rules that are meant to screw carriers. Right now, summary documents for insurance plans run 10-15 pages, and these documents explain every possible explanation of how the policy works. They are there for comparison purposes, called summary plan descriptions. The new legislation creates the requirement that these documents can't be longer than 4 pages. Why the hell would legislation require something like that? In my opinion, it's because insurance carriers can't put policy limitations on 4 pages, so the requirement is aimed at creating problems with insurance carriers who try to save costs by limiting coverage.If you are arguing guarantee issue or that insurance carriers should cover everything, then I disagree and I would like an explanation. I would love to hear why you think obamacare/healthcare reform are good for us as a country. Or anyone else. I would argue that we need major, major reform, but this legislation doesn't address that, it only moves us closer to government subsidized/administered healthcare, like medicare and medicaid. Is your position that we need more of those types of programs, are you saying they are run better than the private sector?

As someone who has a pre-existing condition, I think Obamacare does a lot to address access. I still think Obamacare blows and there were far better ways to reform healthcare but just sayin.

[Jeepster80125 0]

As someone who has a pre-existing condition, I think Obamacare does a lot to address access. I still think Obamacare blows and there were far better ways to reform healthcare but just sayin.

I can't speak for Florida, so I'm going to assume for a second that Florida's rules mirror Colorado's.Before obamacare, you still have access to coverage, even with your pre-existing condition. The easiest way for you to get affordable coverage with your preex is to have an employer pay for it with a group plan that's guaranteed issue, where the employer is required to contribute in some form. The next way to get covered affordable is an individual plan, but you wouldn't qualify since they do medical underwriting. So that's out. Now let's say you lose coverage at your job for whatever reason IN THIS ECONOMY. You go to your state's high risk pool, ours is cover colorado. I'm sure florida has something similar. If you can't afford that coverage, then you'll likely be looking at medicaid or other government subsidies. Tell me how obamacare does anything to change how you access your healthcare, because in my opinion, there were already programs set up that would accept you and your pre-existing condition. An example of how crappy obamacare is. It created an additional high risk pool in Colorado for people who can't qualify for coverage elsewhere, even our current high risk pool. I don't know of a case where someone couldn't qualify for an existing program, but whatever.Anyway, this program is called getting us covered, but it's going to be capped at 4,000 people or when it runs out of money. It's pretty absurd for you to say that obamacare addressed the crisis of access. 4,000 more people covered doesn't mean that crisis goes away.

[hblask 1]

If we need a program to cover pre-existing conditions -- and clearly we do, since the govt made healthcare too expensive for many people -- the answer is to move to competitive care, and have a 2 or 3 year open enrollment period where everyone, regardless of health, can get into a special risk pool. After that enrollment period, no more. It's time for people to take responsibility. Your parents buy care when you are born, when you become an adult you have one year to get insurance on your own. People who are too poor and willing to have their life examined inside-out and submit to financial audits can get subsidized care. Everyone else gets to live with the consequences of their decision. If you choose not to get insurance and then get sick, now you have to buy really expensive insurance. It is impossible for the govt to ever to be able to afford subsidizing people's bad choices over the long term. It just can't ever work, because there is always someone on that edge who will be pushed to make a bad decision.

[Jeepster80125 0]

If we need a program to cover pre-existing conditions -- and clearly we do, since the govt made healthcare too expensive for many people -- the answer is to move to competitive care, and have a 2 or 3 year open enrollment period where everyone, regardless of health, can get into a special risk pool. After that enrollment period, no more. It's time for people to take responsibility. Your parents buy care when you are born, when you become an adult you have one year to get insurance on your own. People who are too poor and willing to have their life examined inside-out and submit to financial audits can get subsidized care. Everyone else gets to live with the consequences of their decision. If you choose not to get insurance and then get sick, now you have to buy really expensive insurance. It is impossible for the govt to ever to be able to afford subsidizing people's bad choices over the long term. It just can't ever work, because there is always someone on that edge who will be pushed to make a bad decision.

Some people think that you should never go bankrupt from medical bills. I would imagine that those people would never agree to this. But, it's exactly what would solve a lot of the problems we have. Then, we need to address costs by increasing transparency, removing things like the AMA and other roadblocks to success, remove the monopoly that hospitals have. We need major tort reform (sorry cane), and doctors need to stop practicing defensive medicine. It's insane the way you are treated by some providers.

[CaneBrain 95]

Some people think that you should never go bankrupt from medical bills. I would imagine that those people would never agree to this. But, it's exactly what would solve a lot of the problems we have. Then, we need to address costs by increasing transparency, removing things like the AMA and other roadblocks to success, remove the monopoly that hospitals have. We need major tort reform (sorry cane), and doctors need to stop practicing defensive medicine. It's insane the way you are treated by some providers.

you don't have to apologize to me; I have no problem with reasonable tort reform.most medical malpractice comes from a small percentage of doctors.....if the AMA policed their own a little better med mal would go down a lot. Pain and suffering damages have skyrocketed crazily over the years. Actual compensatory damages are not the problem.