Obamacare: Obama just straight up lied to you, in your face (1 Viewer)

[fourd]

Getting more money ready for the insurance industry -

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-insurance-bailout-20140521-story.html#page=1

And a couple of days ago BCBS of IL announced they would allow employers to keep their non-complaint plans for another year.

 

[timschochet]

All right. So it's made up of Democrats. But the work they do is apparently non-partisan. Do you have examples of them performing their work in a partisan manner? And specifically, do you have evidence that they falsified this study in some way to reach a partisan conclusion?

JFC.

JFC is accurate. Your assumptions are ridiculous. Its the same crap I hear from Rush Limbaugh, how the fact that a majority of journalists vote Democrat "proves" that they report the news with a liberal bent. It's BS. You spout it because they're reporting facts you don't want to hear. The Urban Institute is non-partisan and their studies can be relied upon as accurate. Again if you have proof otherwise then demonstrate it.

You've got to be kidding me Tim. Of course we all are biased by out views. If I like cycling, I'm much more likely to report on it favorably. If I'm homosexual, I much more like to report on that topic in a way that supports it. You think that because Jessie Jackson is religious he's going to be on target relative to Jewish issues?

The Urban Institute does not issue opinion pieces. They're not a magazine like Forbes. They perform studies. They perform those studies on a non-partisan basis. If they allowed personal bias to affect those studies, the studies (and the Urban Institute itself) would be worthless. That is effectively Humpback's position. If he is going to dismiss the Urban Institute, then he needs to prove that it allows personal bias to affect its results. If Humpback can't or won't prove that, but only relies on the knowledge of the personal political views of several of the members of the Urban Institute and chooses to dismiss all studies issued by the Urban Institute as a result, then I can dismiss Humpback's position as both absurd and inconsequential.

Did you read the "study"? Of course you didn't, it wasn't even done by the Urban Institute for crying out loud. You have no idea how The Commonwealth Fund came to their conclusions yet you're accepting it as non-partisan fact because you "want" it to be true. For starters, they made their "calculations" assuming that each state which refused the expansion was the only one who did, and the other 49 accepted it.

You've also ignored the other studies which say that expansion will cost the states money, but that's okay because you don't want those to be true. Those must be from partisan liars!

I don't have the time to correct you on everything that you're wrong about (no human does).

The USA Today article said the Urban Institute. If your complaint is that it wasn't done by the Urban Institute, but instead by a less trustworthy organization (FWIW, I've never heard of the Commonwealth Fund), then why didn't you bring it up earlier? Why did you limit your remarks to dismissing the Urban Institute based on bias? Or did you come up with all this other stuff later?

As far as the expansion costing the states money, you claim that I ignored the other studies that state this. I'm unaware of those studies. I have ignored one partisan opinion piece that stated it. But if there is a non-partisan study that contradicts the Urban Institute study, I will gladly look at it. Right now I do not believe that accepting the Medicaid funds will cost the states money they cannot afford. But I could easily change my mind if reliable evidence is presented to the contrary.

It's like you're trying to make every post of yours worse than the last.

The USA Today article, which you posted, says "By 2022, Texas could lose $9.2 billion by not expanding Medicaid as allowed under the Affordable Care Act, while Florida could lose $5 billion over that period, the study conducted by The Commonwealth Fund shows. Commonwealth was founded in 1918 to improve health services for Americans." and "The report, "How States Stand to gain or Lose Federal Funds by Opting In or Out of the Medicaid Expansion," looked at net costs to taxpayers using data from the Urban Institute".

My follow up post also clearly stated this. You brought up the Urban Institute being non-biased, I just corrected you.

I've already wasted way too much time with your typical nonsense. It's not hard at all to find other studies using the Google, but again, you have no interest in anything other than what you want to see/hear. I'm certainly not going to waste more time just so you can ignore those too.

I missed that, and so did you; otherwise you would have pointed it out the first time around instead of spending so much time attacking the Urban Institute. I did not defend the UI as non-partisan until you scorned the notion that it was non-partisan.

 

[humpback]

The USA Today article said the Urban Institute. If your complaint is that it wasn't done by the Urban Institute, but instead by a less trustworthy organization (FWIW, I've never heard of the Commonwealth Fund), then why didn't you bring it up earlier? Why did you limit your remarks to dismissing the Urban Institute based on bias? Or did you come up with all this other stuff later?

As far as the expansion costing the states money, you claim that I ignored the other studies that state this. I'm unaware of those studies. I have ignored one partisan opinion piece that stated it. But if there is a non-partisan study that contradicts the Urban Institute study, I will gladly look at it. Right now I do not believe that accepting the Medicaid funds will cost the states money they cannot afford. But I could easily change my mind if reliable evidence is presented to the contrary.

It's like you're trying to make every post of yours worse than the last.

The USA Today article, which you posted, says "By 2022, Texas could lose $9.2 billion by not expanding Medicaid as allowed under the Affordable Care Act, while Florida could lose $5 billion over that period, the study conducted by The Commonwealth Fund shows. Commonwealth was founded in 1918 to improve health services for Americans." and "The report, "How States Stand to gain or Lose Federal Funds by Opting In or Out of the Medicaid Expansion," looked at net costs to taxpayers using data from the Urban Institute".

My follow up post also clearly stated this. You brought up the Urban Institute being non-biased, I just corrected you.

I've already wasted way too much time with your typical nonsense. It's not hard at all to find other studies using the Google, but again, you have no interest in anything other than what you want to see/hear. I'm certainly not going to waste more time just so you can ignore those too.

I missed that, and so did you; otherwise you would have pointed it out the first time around instead of spending so much time attacking the Urban Institute. I did not defend the UI as non-partisan until you scorned the notion that it was non-partisan.

Almost 74K posts, and I'm not sure if you've ever had one that isn't almost entirely incorrect:

It's been allocated. Also, do you accept the study that says that states that don't accept it will lose money?

"Allocated".

I haven't seen the study, just a write up you linked which said the "study" by The Commonwealth Fund used data from the "nonpartisan" Urban Institute.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Getting more money ready for the insurance industry -

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-insurance-bailout-20140521-story.html#page=1

And a couple of days ago BCBS of IL announced they would allow employers to keep their non-complaint plans for another year.

Is this a surprise? They need to cover up this huge failure. But then again, cover-ups is what Obama specializes in.

 

[drummer]

Getting more money ready for the insurance industry -

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-insurance-bailout-20140521-story.html#page=1

And a couple of days ago BCBS of IL announced they would allow employers to keep their non-complaint plans for another year.

Is this a surprise? They need to cover up this huge failure. But then again, cover-ups is what Obama specializes in.

johnjohn was better than this.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Getting more money ready for the insurance industry -

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-insurance-bailout-20140521-story.html#page=1

And a couple of days ago BCBS of IL announced they would allow employers to keep their non-complaint plans for another year.

Is this a surprise? They need to cover up this huge failure. But then again, cover-ups is what Obama specializes in.

johnjohn was better than this.

You should see Drummer's posts. It's like a TGunz and ToddAndrews love child got hold of a keyboard.

 

[timschochet]

The USA Today article said the Urban Institute. If your complaint is that it wasn't done by the Urban Institute, but instead by a less trustworthy organization (FWIW, I've never heard of the Commonwealth Fund), then why didn't you bring it up earlier? Why did you limit your remarks to dismissing the Urban Institute based on bias? Or did you come up with all this other stuff later?

As far as the expansion costing the states money, you claim that I ignored the other studies that state this. I'm unaware of those studies. I have ignored one partisan opinion piece that stated it. But if there is a non-partisan study that contradicts the Urban Institute study, I will gladly look at it. Right now I do not believe that accepting the Medicaid funds will cost the states money they cannot afford. But I could easily change my mind if reliable evidence is presented to the contrary.

It's like you're trying to make every post of yours worse than the last.The USA Today article, which you posted, says "By 2022, Texas could lose $9.2 billion by not expanding Medicaid as allowed under the Affordable Care Act, while Florida could lose $5 billion over that period, the study conducted by The Commonwealth Fund shows. Commonwealth was founded in 1918 to improve health services for Americans." and "The report, "How States Stand to gain or Lose Federal Funds by Opting In or Out of the Medicaid Expansion," looked at net costs to taxpayers using data from the Urban Institute".

My follow up post also clearly stated this. You brought up the Urban Institute being non-biased, I just corrected you.

I've already wasted way too much time with your typical nonsense. It's not hard at all to find other studies using the Google, but again, you have no interest in anything other than what you want to see/hear. I'm certainly not going to waste more time just so you can ignore those too.

I missed that, and so did you; otherwise you would have pointed it out the first time around instead of spending so much time attacking the Urban Institute. I did not defend the UI as non-partisan until you scorned the notion that it was non-partisan.

Almost 74K posts, and I'm not sure if you've ever had one that isn't almost entirely incorrect:

It's been allocated. Also, do you accept the study that says that states that don't accept it will lose money?

"Allocated". I haven't seen the study, just a write up you linked which said the "study" by The Commonwealth Fund used data from the "nonpartisan" Urban Institute.

But you didnt attack the Commonwealrh Fund. You attacked the Urban Inatitute. Why are you bringing up the Commonwealth Fund now?

 

[drummer]

Getting more money ready for the insurance industry -

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-insurance-bailout-20140521-story.html#page=1

And a couple of days ago BCBS of IL announced they would allow employers to keep their non-complaint plans for another year.

Is this a surprise? They need to cover up this huge failure. But then again, cover-ups is what Obama specializes in.

johnjohn was better than this.

You should see Drummer's posts. It's like a TGunz and ToddAndrews love child got hold of a keyboard.

tim's a better read than maxmax. All maxmax posts are gay references because well, he has issues. Like not having a high school education for instance.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Getting more money ready for the insurance industry -

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-insurance-bailout-20140521-story.html#page=1

And a couple of days ago BCBS of IL announced they would allow employers to keep their non-complaint plans for another year.

Is this a surprise? They need to cover up this huge failure. But then again, cover-ups is what Obama specializes in.

johnjohn was better than this.

You should see Drummer's posts. It's like a TGunz and ToddAndrews love child got hold of a keyboard.

tim's a better read than maxmax. All maxmax posts are gay references because well, he has issues. Like not having a high school education for instance.

Who has issues?

 

[drummer]

Getting more money ready for the insurance industry -

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-insurance-bailout-20140521-story.html#page=1

And a couple of days ago BCBS of IL announced they would allow employers to keep their non-complaint plans for another year.

Is this a surprise? They need to cover up this huge failure. But then again, cover-ups is what Obama specializes in.

johnjohn was better than this.

You should see Drummer's posts. It's like a TGunz and ToddAndrews love child got hold of a keyboard.

tim's a better read than maxmax. All maxmax posts are gay references because well, he has issues. Like not having a high school education for instance.

Who has issues?

See? He still doesn't understand.

 

[drummer]

BTW, here where I live, there has been more demand for doctors due to the new supply of patients. More supply, more demand. Who is losing here?

 

[humpback]

The USA Today article said the Urban Institute. If your complaint is that it wasn't done by the Urban Institute, but instead by a less trustworthy organization (FWIW, I've never heard of the Commonwealth Fund), then why didn't you bring it up earlier? Why did you limit your remarks to dismissing the Urban Institute based on bias? Or did you come up with all this other stuff later?

As far as the expansion costing the states money, you claim that I ignored the other studies that state this. I'm unaware of those studies. I have ignored one partisan opinion piece that stated it. But if there is a non-partisan study that contradicts the Urban Institute study, I will gladly look at it. Right now I do not believe that accepting the Medicaid funds will cost the states money they cannot afford. But I could easily change my mind if reliable evidence is presented to the contrary.

It's like you're trying to make every post of yours worse than the last.The USA Today article, which you posted, says "By 2022, Texas could lose $9.2 billion by not expanding Medicaid as allowed under the Affordable Care Act, while Florida could lose $5 billion over that period, the study conducted by The Commonwealth Fund shows. Commonwealth was founded in 1918 to improve health services for Americans." and "The report, "How States Stand to gain or Lose Federal Funds by Opting In or Out of the Medicaid Expansion," looked at net costs to taxpayers using data from the Urban Institute".

My follow up post also clearly stated this. You brought up the Urban Institute being non-biased, I just corrected you.

I've already wasted way too much time with your typical nonsense. It's not hard at all to find other studies using the Google, but again, you have no interest in anything other than what you want to see/hear. I'm certainly not going to waste more time just so you can ignore those too.

I missed that, and so did you; otherwise you would have pointed it out the first time around instead of spending so much time attacking the Urban Institute. I did not defend the UI as non-partisan until you scorned the notion that it was non-partisan.

Almost 74K posts, and I'm not sure if you've ever had one that isn't almost entirely incorrect:

It's been allocated. Also, do you accept the study that says that states that don't accept it will lose money?

"Allocated". I haven't seen the study, just a write up you linked which said the "study" by The Commonwealth Fund used data from the "nonpartisan" Urban Institute.

But you didnt attack the Commonwealrh Fund. You attacked the Urban Inatitute. Why are you bringing up the Commonwealth Fund now?

Still almost entirely incorrect. I didn't attack anyone, I put non-partisan in quotes. I brought up the Commonwealth fund in that earlier post I re-quoted above, not now. I brought them up because they were quoted in the article you linked as being the ones who actually did this study that you haven't read but are sure is accurate and not biased in the least.

Have a good night Tim.

 

[Rich Conway]

So Pizzatyme and Rich, as it turns out, your analogy is irreversibly flawed. A much more accurate analogy is this: you have a mortgage of $2,000 a month. President Obama calls you up and says there is a new government program to pay most of your mortgage. For 3 years, the government will pay 100% of your mortgage, and after that, they will pay 90% of your mortgage. However, you refuse to accept this money because it's from President Obama, and if you accept it, all of your friends who hate Obama will be mean to you.

It's flawed because USA Today made up some numbers? Stop.

By the logic in that article, we could all become millionaires by simply having the government spend another five trillion a year. It doesn't work that way.

 

[Rich Conway]

All right. So it's made up of Democrats. But the work they do is apparently non-partisan. Do you have examples of them performing their work in a partisan manner? And specifically, do you have evidence that they falsified this study in some way to reach a partisan conclusion?

JFC.

JFC is accurate. Your assumptions are ridiculous. Its the same crap I hear from Rush Limbaugh, how the fact that a majority of journalists vote Democrat "proves" that they report the news with a liberal bent. It's BS. You spout it because they're reporting facts you don't want to hear. The Urban Institute is non-partisan and their studies can be relied upon as accurate. Again if you have proof otherwise then demonstrate it.

In fairness here, you think the New York Times is non-partisan, so... Kinda shows you don't have a good sense of what is partisan and what is not.

 

[Rich Conway]

Not really. I honestly don't know much more about the Urban Inatitute than you do. I was just irked by Humpback arguing that their membership contributes to the Democrats, and therefore they are partisan. I hate that sort of argument. It grates on me.

I'm not suggesting his information is proof that they are partisan, but I would suggest that, of the two, the evidence "the members' donations went 100% to Democrats" is better proof of partisanship than your evidence "I've never heard of them" is proof of non-partisanship.

 

[Rich Conway]

The Urban Institute does not issue opinion pieces. They're not a magazine like Forbes. They perform studies. They perform those studies on a non-partisan basis. If they allowed personal bias to affect those studies, the studies (and the Urban Institute itself) would be worthless. That is effectively Humpback's position. If he is going to dismiss the Urban Institute, then he needs to prove that it allows personal bias to affect its results. If Humpback can't or won't prove that, but only relies on the knowledge of the personal political views of several of the members of the Urban Institute and chooses to dismiss all studies issued by the Urban Institute as a result, then I can dismiss Humpback's position as both absurd and inconsequential.

Do you have any proof of the bolded statement, other than the claim of the organization itself? I'm just unclear on what makes you so certain that they are non-partisan. So far, you've offered no evidence whatsoever, yet remain steadfast in the face of (admittedly circumstantial) evidence to the contrary. With circumstantial evidence on one side versus zero evidence on the other, shouldn't your opinion at least be "I'm not clear on whether the organization is partisan" rather than "they're definitely non-partisan"?

 

[Rich Conway]

You've got the wrong guy. I didn't dismiss either study. The only point that I made was that those studies were misrepresented here (not by you) to imply that EVERYONE would be facing a 40% increase.

And stop with this. It was repeatedly pointed out in this thread that those studies applied only to the individual market. Dozens of times. The fact that you repeatedly forgot doesn't require other posters to continue pointing it out every time the studies were mentioned. It doesn't mean others were misrepresenting anything, but more likely that they just got tired of repeating themselves.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

You've got the wrong guy. I didn't dismiss either study. The only point that I made was that those studies were misrepresented here (not by you) to imply that EVERYONE would be facing a 40% increase.

And stop with this. It was repeatedly pointed out in this thread that those studies applied only to the individual market. Dozens of times. The fact that you repeatedly forgot doesn't require other posters to continue pointing it out every time the studies were mentioned. It doesn't mean others were misrepresenting anything, but more likely that they just got tired of repeating themselves.

Oh please!

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

So Pizzatyme and Rich, as it turns out, your analogy is irreversibly flawed. A much more accurate analogy is this: you have a mortgage of $2,000 a month. President Obama calls you up and says there is a new government program to pay most of your mortgage. For 3 years, the government will pay 100% of your mortgage, and after that, they will pay 90% of your mortgage. However, you refuse to accept this money because it's from President Obama, and if you accept it, all of your friends who hate Obama will be mean to you.

It's flawed because USA Today made up some numbers? Stop.

By the logic in that article, we could all become millionaires by simply having the government spend another five trillion a year. It doesn't work that way.

Why do we care about any article? What is the flawed logic from the states perspective that taxation that already exists on $9 entering the economy will raise most, all, or even more than the states $1 share?

And the $9 have to come from somewhere is not a rebuttal because as Timmy correctly points out this is being collected including from the states that opt out either way. So while it might matter from a national perspective, it is not part of the state's government's equation in fulfilling its duties to its residents.

And I hope that you find that the formula or taxing schemes being changed due to an "executive order" by the next administration is equally absurd.

So far that is the extent of the rebuttal so I'm guessing there is no cringe worthy mistakes if I revisit that post. But I'll wait.

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

You've got the wrong guy. I didn't dismiss either study. The only point that I made was that those studies were misrepresented here (not by you) to imply that EVERYONE would be facing a 40% increase.

And stop with this. It was repeatedly pointed out in this thread that those studies applied only to the individual market. Dozens of times. The fact that you repeatedly forgot doesn't require other posters to continue pointing it out every time the studies were mentioned. It doesn't mean others were misrepresenting anything, but more likely that they just got tired of repeating themselves.

Oh please!

 

[Rich Conway]

You've got the wrong guy. I didn't dismiss either study. The only point that I made was that those studies were misrepresented here (not by you) to imply that EVERYONE would be facing a 40% increase.

And stop with this. It was repeatedly pointed out in this thread that those studies applied only to the individual market. Dozens of times. The fact that you repeatedly forgot doesn't require other posters to continue pointing it out every time the studies were mentioned. It doesn't mean others were misrepresenting anything, but more likely that they just got tired of repeating themselves.

Oh please!

I'm confused. You're linking to a post in which I stated that the 41% applies to individual policies to refute the fact that people have repeatedly pointed out that the 41% applies to individual policies?

 

[Todd Andrews]

All right. So it's made up of Democrats. But the work they do is apparently non-partisan. Do you have examples of them performing their work in a partisan manner? And specifically, do you have evidence that they falsified this study in some way to reach a partisan conclusion?

JFC.

JFC is accurate. Your assumptions are ridiculous. Its the same crap I hear from Rush Limbaugh, how the fact that a majority of journalists vote Democrat "proves" that they report the news with a liberal bent. It's BS. You spout it because they're reporting facts you don't want to hear. The Urban Institute is non-partisan and their studies can be relied upon as accurate. Again if you have proof otherwise then demonstrate it.

In fairness here, you think the New York Times is non-partisan, so... Kinda shows you don't have a good sense of what is partisan and what is not.

It is quite amusing how everything in KooKWorld is partisan--you are either for the KooKs or against them. And if everything can be divided into two partisan biased camps, pro-KooK and anti-KooK, then no one who doesnt want to has to believe anything from anyone. Convenient, that, for those who want to make stuff up, create Bizarro facts, or misrepresent things or, I dont know, have a KooKy spin on everything.

 

[timschochet]

I'll repeat, I don't find the NYT, CNN, the major news networks, what is known as the "mainstream media" to be partisan. Are they flawed? Yes, unfortunately, more than I thought, as I learned to my chagrin in the Snowden thread. Do they deliberately falsify information or mislead people or "slant" the news in order to promote a liberal agenda, as many conservatives charge? Not only no, but hell no. (the Snowden story that I was wrong about, in which the NYT went along with the urgings of the Bush Administration against the advice of their reporters, is further evidence of this.)

So sorry Rich, I disagree with you once again, and I believe I have a pretty good idea of what is partisan and what isn't.

 

[fourd]

BTW, here where I live, there has been more demand for doctors due to the new supply of patients. More supply, more demand. Who is losing here?

Where do you find there is a greater supply of doctors?

http://www.jconline.com/story/opinion/contributors/2014/05/20/guest-column-shortage-primary-care-doctors-looming/9348603/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/21/obamacare-emergency-room_n_5352987.html

 

[drummer]

BTW, here where I live, there has been more demand for doctors due to the new supply of patients. More supply, more demand. Who is losing here?

Where do you find there is a greater supply of doctors?

http://www.jconline.com/story/opinion/contributors/2014/05/20/guest-column-shortage-primary-care-doctors-looming/9348603/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/21/obamacare-emergency-room_n_5352987.html

Well, that happens when more people have access to health care, which a whole lot of posters are butthurt over here in this thread.

 

[drummer]

BTW, Big Pharma must be loving this too, especially with the HIV prevention drug that just got CDC "approval". The cost without insurance is $13,000 a year here in the US, but with insurance, of course that cost is cut way low. Of course, the drug costs a whole lot less outside of the US - like 40 percent less in Canada IIRC - but what are we if not Capitalists?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

You've got the wrong guy. I didn't dismiss either study. The only point that I made was that those studies were misrepresented here (not by you) to imply that EVERYONE would be facing a 40% increase.

And stop with this. It was repeatedly pointed out in this thread that those studies applied only to the individual market. Dozens of times. The fact that you repeatedly forgot doesn't require other posters to continue pointing it out every time the studies were mentioned. It doesn't mean others were misrepresenting anything, but more likely that they just got tired of repeating themselves.

Oh please!

I'm confused. You're linking to a post in which I stated that the 41% applies to individual policies to refute the fact that people have repeatedly pointed out that the 41% applies to individual policies?

And then you go on and say that what happens in the individual market is the best indicator we have for everyone else. So even if Timmy was confused in what those studies represented, you and others pounded the drum that the fate of everyone else could be extrapolated from the individual market. So which is it? Is the 41% only relevant to the individual market? Or does it (or something close enough) apply to everyone?

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

You've got the wrong guy. I didn't dismiss either study. The only point that I made was that those studies were misrepresented here (not by you) to imply that EVERYONE would be facing a 40% increase.

And stop with this. It was repeatedly pointed out in this thread that those studies applied only to the individual market. Dozens of times. The fact that you repeatedly forgot doesn't require other posters to continue pointing it out every time the studies were mentioned. It doesn't mean others were misrepresenting anything, but more likely that they just got tired of repeating themselves.

Oh please!

I'm confused. You're linking to a post in which I stated that the 41% applies to individual policies to refute the fact that people have repeatedly pointed out that the 41% applies to individual policies?

So even if Timmy was confused in what those studies represented, you and others pounded the drum that the fate of everyone else could be extrapolated from the individual market.

 

[Sammy3469]

Some things never change.... I take it conservative hacks are still pounding this 41% "increase" number?

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

Some things never change.... I take it conservative hacks are still pounding this 41% "increase" number?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

You've got the wrong guy. I didn't dismiss either study. The only point that I made was that those studies were misrepresented here (not by you) to imply that EVERYONE would be facing a 40% increase.

And stop with this. It was repeatedly pointed out in this thread that those studies applied only to the individual market. Dozens of times. The fact that you repeatedly forgot doesn't require other posters to continue pointing it out every time the studies were mentioned. It doesn't mean others were misrepresenting anything, but more likely that they just got tired of repeating themselves.

Oh please!

I'm confused. You're linking to a post in which I stated that the 41% applies to individual policies to refute the fact that people have repeatedly pointed out that the 41% applies to individual policies?

So even if Timmy was confused in what those studies represented, you and others pounded the drum that the fate of everyone else could be extrapolated from the individual market.

So we are all in agreement now that the 41% only applies to the individual market (assuming it even applies there) and is not particularly relevant for the other 90+% of those with health insurance? If so

 

[MaxThreshold]

All right. So it's made up of Democrats. But the work they do is apparently non-partisan. Do you have examples of them performing their work in a partisan manner? And specifically, do you have evidence that they falsified this study in some way to reach a partisan conclusion?

JFC.

JFC is accurate. Your assumptions are ridiculous. Its the same crap I hear from Rush Limbaugh, how the fact that a majority of journalists vote Democrat "proves" that they report the news with a liberal bent. It's BS. You spout it because they're reporting facts you don't want to hear. The Urban Institute is non-partisan and their studies can be relied upon as accurate. Again if you have proof otherwise then demonstrate it.

In fairness here, you think the New York Times is non-partisan, so... Kinda shows you don't have a good sense of what is partisan and what is not.

It is quite amusing how everything in KooKWorld is partisan--you are either for the KooKs or against them. And if everything can be divided into two partisan biased camps, pro-KooK and anti-KooK, then no one who doesnt want to has to believe anything from anyone. Convenient, that, for those who want to make stuff up, create Bizarro facts, or misrepresent things or, I dont know, have a KooKy spin on everything.

It laughable how you don't realize the irony of your statement here.

 

[drummer]

All right. So it's made up of Democrats. But the work they do is apparently non-partisan. Do you have examples of them performing their work in a partisan manner? And specifically, do you have evidence that they falsified this study in some way to reach a partisan conclusion?

JFC.

JFC is accurate. Your assumptions are ridiculous. Its the same crap I hear from Rush Limbaugh, how the fact that a majority of journalists vote Democrat "proves" that they report the news with a liberal bent. It's BS. You spout it because they're reporting facts you don't want to hear. The Urban Institute is non-partisan and their studies can be relied upon as accurate. Again if you have proof otherwise then demonstrate it.

In fairness here, you think the New York Times is non-partisan, so... Kinda shows you don't have a good sense of what is partisan and what is not.

It is quite amusing how everything in KooKWorld is partisan--you are either for the KooKs or against them. And if everything can be divided into two partisan biased camps, pro-KooK and anti-KooK, then no one who doesnt want to has to believe anything from anyone. Convenient, that, for those who want to make stuff up, create Bizarro facts, or misrepresent things or, I dont know, have a KooKy spin on everything.

It laughable how you don't realize the irony of your statement here.

He caught his bait that's for sure.

 

[Rich Conway]

You've got the wrong guy. I didn't dismiss either study. The only point that I made was that those studies were misrepresented here (not by you) to imply that EVERYONE would be facing a 40% increase.

And stop with this. It was repeatedly pointed out in this thread that those studies applied only to the individual market. Dozens of times. The fact that you repeatedly forgot doesn't require other posters to continue pointing it out every time the studies were mentioned. It doesn't mean others were misrepresenting anything, but more likely that they just got tired of repeating themselves.

Oh please!

I'm confused. You're linking to a post in which I stated that the 41% applies to individual policies to refute the fact that people have repeatedly pointed out that the 41% applies to individual policies?

So even if Timmy was confused in what those studies represented, you and others pounded the drum that the fate of everyone else could be extrapolated from the individual market.

So we are all in agreement now that the 41% only applies to the individual market (assuming it even applies there) and is not particularly relevant for the other 90+% of those with health insurance? If so

The 39% and 41% studies were from the individual market. No one has disputed that or misrepresented that. Also, no one has disputed the 40% number, so for the individual market, I'm assuming it's accurate.

No one, not even me in the post you linked, has claimed that employer based coverage has or will go up 41%. But, there are changes coming to the employer based market. What those will be, exactly, isn't yet known. I believe it's fair to say that smaller networks, higher deductibles, and higher co-pays are certain. Those have already happened. You claim those things would have happened anyway, I'm not so sure. Higher premiums are coming too. 41% higher?

 

[Rich Conway]

I'll repeat, I don't find the NYT, CNN, the major news networks, what is known as the "mainstream media" to be partisan. Are they flawed? Yes, unfortunately, more than I thought, as I learned to my chagrin in the Snowden thread. Do they deliberately falsify information or mislead people or "slant" the news in order to promote a liberal agenda, as many conservatives charge? Not only no, but hell no. (the Snowden story that I was wrong about, in which the NYT went along with the urgings of the Bush Administration against the advice of their reporters, is further evidence of this.)

So sorry Rich, I disagree with you once again, and I believe I have a pretty good idea of what is partisan and what isn't.

Obviously, you don't. The NYT is as bad to the left as the NY Post is to the right. That you don't recognize it says more about you than about them.

 

[timschochet]

I'll repeat, I don't find the NYT, CNN, the major news networks, what is known as the "mainstream media" to be partisan. Are they flawed? Yes, unfortunately, more than I thought, as I learned to my chagrin in the Snowden thread. Do they deliberately falsify information or mislead people or "slant" the news in order to promote a liberal agenda, as many conservatives charge? Not only no, but hell no. (the Snowden story that I was wrong about, in which the NYT went along with the urgings of the Bush Administration against the advice of their reporters, is further evidence of this.)

So sorry Rich, I disagree with you once again, and I believe I have a pretty good idea of what is partisan and what isn't.

Obviously, you don't. The NYT is as bad to the left as the NY Post is to the right. That you don't recognize it says more about you than about them.

Rich, only a portion of conservatives believe this. Virtually no independent, liberal, or moderate Republican is going to agree with you that the Times is the equivalent of the Post.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

You've got the wrong guy. I didn't dismiss either study. The only point that I made was that those studies were misrepresented here (not by you) to imply that EVERYONE would be facing a 40% increase.

And stop with this. It was repeatedly pointed out in this thread that those studies applied only to the individual market. Dozens of times. The fact that you repeatedly forgot doesn't require other posters to continue pointing it out every time the studies were mentioned. It doesn't mean others were misrepresenting anything, but more likely that they just got tired of repeating themselves.

Oh please!

I'm confused. You're linking to a post in which I stated that the 41% applies to individual policies to refute the fact that people have repeatedly pointed out that the 41% applies to individual policies?

So even if Timmy was confused in what those studies represented, you and others pounded the drum that the fate of everyone else could be extrapolated from the individual market.

So we are all in agreement now that the 41% only applies to the individual market (assuming it even applies there) and is not particularly relevant for the other 90+% of those with health insurance? If so

The 39% and 41% studies were from the individual market. No one has disputed that or misrepresented that. Also, no one has disputed the 40% number, so for the individual market, I'm assuming it's accurate.

No one, not even me in the post you linked, has claimed that employer based coverage has or will go up 41%. But, there are changes coming to the employer based market. What those will be, exactly, isn't yet known. I believe it's fair to say that smaller networks, higher deductibles, and higher co-pays are certain. Those have already happened. You claim those things would have happened anyway, I'm not so sure. Higher premiums are coming too. 41% higher?

If we are using the individual market to guide us, why don't we already know what those changes are? Here let me and matttyl help you.

And why aren't you sure that changes that have been happening for more than a decade wouldn't have happened anyway?

 

[tommyGunZ]

I'll repeat, I don't find the NYT, CNN, the major news networks, what is known as the "mainstream media" to be partisan. Are they flawed? Yes, unfortunately, more than I thought, as I learned to my chagrin in the Snowden thread. Do they deliberately falsify information or mislead people or "slant" the news in order to promote a liberal agenda, as many conservatives charge? Not only no, but hell no. (the Snowden story that I was wrong about, in which the NYT went along with the urgings of the Bush Administration against the advice of their reporters, is further evidence of this.)

So sorry Rich, I disagree with you once again, and I believe I have a pretty good idea of what is partisan and what isn't.

Obviously, you don't. The NYT is as bad to the left as the NY Post is to the right. That you don't recognize it says more about you than about them.

The NYT is one of the most respected news organizations in the world, and probably the most respected in the United States. The fact that you equate it to a lefty version of the NYPost speaks volumes about your outlook.

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

I'll repeat, I don't find the NYT, CNN, the major news networks, what is known as the "mainstream media" to be partisan. Are they flawed? Yes, unfortunately, more than I thought, as I learned to my chagrin in the Snowden thread. Do they deliberately falsify information or mislead people or "slant" the news in order to promote a liberal agenda, as many conservatives charge? Not only no, but hell no. (the Snowden story that I was wrong about, in which the NYT went along with the urgings of the Bush Administration against the advice of their reporters, is further evidence of this.)

So sorry Rich, I disagree with you once again, and I believe I have a pretty good idea of what is partisan and what isn't.

Obviously, you don't. The NYT is as bad to the left as the NY Post is to the right. That you don't recognize it says more about you than about them.

The NYT is one of the most respected news organizations in the world, and probably the most respected in the United States. The fact that you equate it to a lefty version of the NYPost speaks volumes about your outlook.

 

[MaxThreshold]

I'll repeat, I don't find the NYT, CNN, the major news networks, what is known as the "mainstream media" to be partisan. Are they flawed? Yes, unfortunately, more than I thought, as I learned to my chagrin in the Snowden thread. Do they deliberately falsify information or mislead people or "slant" the news in order to promote a liberal agenda, as many conservatives charge? Not only no, but hell no. (the Snowden story that I was wrong about, in which the NYT went along with the urgings of the Bush Administration against the advice of their reporters, is further evidence of this.)

So sorry Rich, I disagree with you once again, and I believe I have a pretty good idea of what is partisan and what isn't.

Obviously, you don't. The NYT is as bad to the left as the NY Post is to the right. That you don't recognize it says more about you than about them.

The NYT is one of the most respected news organizations in the world, and probably the most respected in the United States. The fact that you equate it to a lefty version of the NYPost speaks volumes about your outlook.

Holy ####! You actually believe that?

 

[tommyboy]

I'll repeat, I don't find the NYT, CNN, the major news networks, what is known as the "mainstream media" to be partisan. Are they flawed? Yes, unfortunately, more than I thought, as I learned to my chagrin in the Snowden thread. Do they deliberately falsify information or mislead people or "slant" the news in order to promote a liberal agenda, as many conservatives charge? Not only no, but hell no. (the Snowden story that I was wrong about, in which the NYT went along with the urgings of the Bush Administration against the advice of their reporters, is further evidence of this.)

So sorry Rich, I disagree with you once again, and I believe I have a pretty good idea of what is partisan and what isn't.

Obviously, you don't. The NYT is as bad to the left as the NY Post is to the right. That you don't recognize it says more about you than about them.

The NYT is one of the most respected news organizations in the world, and probably the most respected in the United States. The fact that you equate it to a lefty version of the NYPost speaks volumes about your outlook.

it is a liberal newspaper, period

 

[Joe T]

Paul Krugman is a non-partisan economist and writer.

 

[Politician Spock]

I'll repeat, I don't find the NYT, CNN, the major news networks, what is known as the "mainstream media" to be partisan. Are they flawed? Yes, unfortunately, more than I thought, as I learned to my chagrin in the Snowden thread. Do they deliberately falsify information or mislead people or "slant" the news in order to promote a liberal agenda, as many conservatives charge? Not only no, but hell no. (the Snowden story that I was wrong about, in which the NYT went along with the urgings of the Bush Administration against the advice of their reporters, is further evidence of this.)

So sorry Rich, I disagree with you once again, and I believe I have a pretty good idea of what is partisan and what isn't.

Obviously, you don't. The NYT is as bad to the left as the NY Post is to the right. That you don't recognize it says more about you than about them.

The NYT is one of the most respected news organizations in the world, and probably the most respected in the United States. The fact that you equate it to a lefty version of the NYPost speaks volumes about your outlook.

Respected doesn't mean non-biased.

Non-biased is a theoretical concept, but the chances of an outfit as big as the NYT actually achieving it are similar to successfully balancing an elephant on nothing but a bowling ball.

The NYT is biased. The question is to what degree.

 

[Rich Conway]

I'll repeat, I don't find the NYT, CNN, the major news networks, what is known as the "mainstream media" to be partisan. Are they flawed? Yes, unfortunately, more than I thought, as I learned to my chagrin in the Snowden thread. Do they deliberately falsify information or mislead people or "slant" the news in order to promote a liberal agenda, as many conservatives charge? Not only no, but hell no. (the Snowden story that I was wrong about, in which the NYT went along with the urgings of the Bush Administration against the advice of their reporters, is further evidence of this.)

So sorry Rich, I disagree with you once again, and I believe I have a pretty good idea of what is partisan and what isn't.

Obviously, you don't. The NYT is as bad to the left as the NY Post is to the right. That you don't recognize it says more about you than about them.

The NYT is one of the most respected news organizations in the world, and probably the most respected in the United States. The fact that you equate it to a lefty version of the NYPost speaks volumes about your outlook.

And President Obama is one of the most respected people in the world. But guess what? He's liberally biased.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I'll repeat, I don't find the NYT, CNN, the major news networks, what is known as the "mainstream media" to be partisan. Are they flawed? Yes, unfortunately, more than I thought, as I learned to my chagrin in the Snowden thread. Do they deliberately falsify information or mislead people or "slant" the news in order to promote a liberal agenda, as many conservatives charge? Not only no, but hell no. (the Snowden story that I was wrong about, in which the NYT went along with the urgings of the Bush Administration against the advice of their reporters, is further evidence of this.)

So sorry Rich, I disagree with you once again, and I believe I have a pretty good idea of what is partisan and what isn't.

If you want proof pull up the NYT editorial page right now.

Not the op-eds written by various pundits, I mean the actual editorial by the editors at the paper.

I haven't even looked, what does it say at this very moment?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

And President Obama is one of the most respected people in the world. But guess what? He's liberally biased.

This is funny!

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

it is a liberal newspaper, period

So is every news organization that reports reality.

 

[Rich Conway]

Top item on the Opinion page is "Faking Cultural Literacy: Our cultural canon is determined by whatever gets the most clicks.", by Karl Taro Greenfeld.

Actual editorial by the editorial board is: "End Mass Incarceration Now: The American experiment in locking up vast numbers of citizens has been a moral, legal, social and economic disaster. It cannot end soon enough."

 

[Rich Conway]

And President Obama is one of the most respected people in the world. But guess what? He's liberally biased.

This is funny!

Why? It's true, the same as "Reagan was conservatively biased." or "McCain is conservatively biased."

 

[MaxThreshold]

it is a liberal newspaper, period

So is every news organization that reports reality fantasy.

FYP. You're welcome.