Let's assume for the moment...

[woolfe9999]

I do believe that. The problem is there aren't many true conservatives.

Conservative/=libertarian. "Conservatives" in this country are hawkish, against arbortion, anti-gay rights. I am perplexed as to why libertarians think of themselves as "conservatives." That works only if you define conservative exlusively as the belief in limited government. Yet that belief isn't soley what has defined conservatism in this country.

 

[Jhhnn]

- Herman Cain or another Tea Party favorite wins the Republican nomination and the general election
- Republicans win supermajority control of both the House and Senate

Then.. after a year or two...

- Unemployment and budget deficits remains at or nearly as high as it was in the Obama years
- Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid receive only token reforms that don't really cut costs
- Taxes get cut and regulations are eased

These are not unreasonable assumptions, either.. BTW.

What bandwagon will you all jump on in the 2014 and 2016 elections?

What if? Repubs will cut straight to the finish- Explosive financial inequality- Oligarchs & Debt Slaves, with a few Freemen struggling to hold on.

Straight into the belly of the beast before you know it's even happening. The only thing that prevented it during the Bush years was the lack of a super majority in the Senate.

 

[ProfJohn]

You can't be that ignorant D:

Their parents are footing the bill or in the case of my niece she pays her parents for the increase in there premium. The bill makes it legal for young adults to stay on there parents insurance until the hit 26.

So you just admitted their your niece is paying for the 'increase' in premium caused by her being on her parents health insurance thus their health insurance went UP because of Obamacare.

 

[Munky]

If the next President and Congress tries to extend the status quo instead of addressing the problem, they will deserve the same backlash as the current ones do.

 

[ProfJohn]

Pure disinformation. Trying to start a bandwagon?

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/773/fewer-voters-identify-as-republicans

A March 2008 study proves nothing. The report is actually worthless when compared to the point I was making because the numbers don't equal the actual vote totals on either side.

Going all the way back to 1976:
The lowest total a Republican has got during an election is 45% by McCain.
The lowest total by a Democrat was Mondale at 40%.

That suggests that 45 and 40 are the LOW points that any President nominated by either of party will receive.


Your link shows voter identification which is a good measure of party strength when you compare one year to another but the numbers on the charts are well below actual election numbers.
In 2000 the total ID for Dems was 46 and for the GOP it was 42 and the actual result was 48/48
In 2004 the ID for the Dems was 47 and for the GOP it was 44 and the end result was 48/50
In 2008 the ID for Dems was 51 and for the GOP 37 and end result was 52/45

So in each of the last 3 elections the GOP numbers have been at least 6 points below the actual result. The Democrat number is a little closer, but still tends to be below actual results.

 

[Ausm]

So you just admitted their your niece is paying for the 'increase' in premium caused by her being on her parents health insurance thus their health insurance went UP because of Obamacare.

Dude it's private insurance that's like saying if I have insurance from Company A and someone else gets insurance from Company A my premiums will go up. My Premiums go up due to medical costs and Insurance companies wanting to pad their profit margin.

If I added anyone else to my insurance BEFORE the healthcare act was instituted my fucking insurance still would have went up so what's your point?

My point is that my children can be covered for a greater amount of time SINCE this bill has been enacted which is to great benefit to them.

 

[ProfJohn]

Conservative/=libertarian. "Conservatives" in this country are hawkish, against arbortion, anti-gay rights. I am perplexed as to why libertarians think of themselves as "conservatives." That works only if you define conservative exlusively as the belief in limited government. Yet that belief isn't soley what has defined conservatism in this country.

Limited government is the first and foremost definition of conservatism.

Second would be strong defense.

Third would be social issues.

You can be right on 1 & 2 and be wrong on 3 and still be considers a conservative. But if you are wrong or one or two then you really aren't a conservative and more of a moderate.

McCain was conservative, but he was not A conservative aka he had conservative views on a lot of issues, but he was not a member of the movement.

Bush was similar, right on some issues but not on others and he was certainly not a member of the conservative movement or else he would not have been passing budgets with 8% year to year spending increases.

 

[dank69]

...


Oddly enough, we used to expect our children to grow up and be adults. Somewhere along the line that became optional I suppose.


...

God damn those whippersnappers for wanting to get a masters or PHD!

 

[dank69]

And that explains why health insurance costs jumped BIG time last year.

Nothing in this world is free and when you put a few million 20 year olds on their parents policies someone has to foot the bill thus higher premiums.

You just swallow that load from the insurance companies and ask for more, don't you?
Healthcare costs have jumped big time on many occasions prior to last year and 18-26 year olds have to be in the lowest risk category of all people. But don't let these simple facts get in the way.

 

[cubby1223]

- Herman Cain or another Tea Party favorite wins the Republican nomination and the general election
- Republicans win supermajority control of both the House and Senate

Then.. after a year or two...

- Unemployment and budget deficits remains at or nearly as high as it was in the Obama years
- Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid receive only token reforms that don't really cut costs
- Taxes get cut and regulations are eased

These are not unreasonable assumptions, either.. BTW.

What bandwagon will you all jump on in the 2014 and 2016 elections?

If this country is a pile of shit in two years, do you think I will give a damn about jumping on a party bandwagon? I don't give a damn about jumping on any party bandwagon as it is. Personally I do not vote. Never have, and probably never will.


Let's also assume that:
A Republican wins the White House.
Republicans control House & Senate but only a simple majority.

And after a few years of Repubs & Dems in the Senate hating each other:
- Unemployment and budget deficits remains at or nearly as high as it was in the Obama years
- Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid receive only token reforms that don't really cut costs
- Taxes and regulations who the fuck cares?

These are not unreasonable assumptions, either.. BTW.

What bandwagon will _you_ jump on in the 2014 and 2016 elections?

 

[ProfJohn]

Dude it's private insurance that's like saying if I have insurance from Company A and someone else gets insurance from Company A my premiums will go up. My Premiums go up due to medical costs and Insurance companies wanting to pad their profit margin.

And the medical costs went up because we added millions of 20 somethings to their parents insurance instead of them getting their own or skipping out like they did in the past. There are more people using the system so the costs for the system have gone up and thus its charges must go up too.

It all comes down to cost sharing. In the old days young people skipped out on health insurance because they were young and healthy. This creates a situation where only old and sick people have healthcare and thus the people who have it are the ones most likely to use it and thus costs have to go up to cover their usage.

So to bring the cost per person down you have to add more people to the system, preferably people who won't use the services. So you do this by extending coverage to cover 'children' in their 20s. So now we have a few million people who would not have had any insurance before paying into the system but not using it as much as the older sicker people. Thus the cost per person has gone down, but the overall cost of the system has gone up.

That is the whole point of Obamacare and the mandate. It requires everyone to pay into the system even if they aren't using it. The people who are in the system and using it make out because of all the new money flowing in, but the people out of it and not using it lose because they are now paying for something they aren't using.

Which brings us to the next problem. All the new people decide that they want to use their new services and start using the system and thus overall costs go up again and we are right back where we started.


I think the lesson of Romneycare is that mandates don't work because costs of gone through the roof. Sure everyone has healthcare now, but everyone had access to healthcare before. Our problem has never been access to healthcare our problem is the cost once we get healthcare.

The best solution at this point looks to be user pays types systems such as many companies have adopted. So insurance covers the costs of somethings and helps to cover the cost of others, but you have to decide whether you want to pay for that x-ray or not and thus costs are contained.

 

[ProfJohn]

You just swallow that load from the insurance companies and ask for more, don't you?
Healthcare costs have jumped big time on many occasions prior to last year and 18-26 year olds have to be in the lowest risk category of all people. But don't let these simple facts get in the way.

But they still have some risk and they still have some medical needs and now that they have insurance they are probably using the system more than they did before.

When I had health insurance at 21-22 I used it, twice in 2 years.

Then I went a decade without insurance for long periods of time and I didn't use it.

Instead of going to the Doctor due to that bad cold I bought some NyQuil. Instead of the emergency room for that wrist I fell on I bought a brace and some ice and waited to see if it got better first.

The results were the same, but they were a LOT cheaper because I didn't have that 'free' or nearly free healthcare sitting in my back pocket on a card. Instead I had to decide whether I wanted to spend the money or not and I choose not to spend it every case.


That is the kind of decision making we need to put back into the healthcare system.
I had a bad cold and went to the doctor. He sees fluid in the ears and gives me an RX. But he also hears something strange in my breathing and suggest an EKG. The EKG was free so I say sure why not and he just passes the cost along to the insurance company.

Today I would skip in the EKG unless I felt that I really needed it and had real heart/breathing problems. But many people won't tell their doctor no, they just accept anything and everything and since they aren't paying they don't care what it costs.

That is our problem and that is what we need to fix. The cost problem.

 

[dank69]

...

It all comes down to cost sharing. In the old days young people skipped out on health insurance because they were young and healthy. This creates a situation where only old and sick people have healthcare and thus the people who have it are the ones most likely to use it and thus costs have to go up to cover their usage.

So to bring the cost per person down you have to add more people to the system, preferably people who won't use the services. So you do this by extending coverage to cover 'children' in their 20s. So now we have a few million people who would not have had any insurance before paying into the system but not using it as much as the older sicker people. Thus the cost per person has gone down, but the overall cost of the system has gone up.

...

OMG lol ProJo, only you would say that adding people paying into the system that don't use the benefits of that system would drive up costs to maintain that system.

 

[ProfJohn]

OMG lol ProJo, only you would say that adding people paying into the system that don't use the benefits of that system would drive up costs to maintain that system.

Think about it...

Old system:
Kids had no insurance and didn't use the system mostly and thus they cost the system very little (Some had insurance on their own and most them probably still do and some didn't have insurance and used the system for free and that probably hasn't changed much either)

New system
Kids are on parents system, using the system more and thus costing the system more. Thus the system needs more money and thus it has to increase premiums to cover the new users.

It is like adding a teenage to your auto policy. You still have the same number of cars as you did before, but the chances of an accident go up and thus your cost goes up. Your kid may never crash, but someone else's will and thus everyone with insurance pays a little bit more.

 

[dank69]

Think about it...

Old system:
Kids had no insurance and didn't use the system mostly and thus they cost the system very little (Some had insurance on their own and most them probably still do and some didn't have insurance and used the system for free and that probably hasn't changed much either)

New system
Kids are on parents system, using the system more and thus costing the system more. Thus the system needs more money and thus it has to increase premiums to cover the new users.

It is like adding a teenage to your auto policy. You still have the same number of cars as you did before, but the chances of an accident go up and thus your cost goes up. Your kid may never crash, but someone else's will and thus everyone with insurance pays a little bit more.

You are terrible. Adding a teenager to an auto policy increases your risk substantially. Adding a teenager to a health plan does not increase risk substantially. Your comparison does not hold up, at all, no matter how much you hope other people think it does.

 

[ProfJohn]

You are terrible. Adding a teenager to an auto policy increases your risk substantially. Adding a teenager to a health plan does not increase risk substantially. Your comparison does not hold up, at all, no matter how much you hope other people think it does.

So none of these new users are getting medical care?

Not one of them has gone to the doctors? Or ER? Or had a check up?

A couple million of people who didn't have insurance before now have it, but none of them are using it?

Is that what you are suggesting?

 

[dank69]

So none of these new users are getting medical care?

Not one of them has gone to the doctors? Or ER? Or had a check up?

A couple million of people who didn't have insurance before now have it, but none of them are using it?

Is that what you are suggesting?

No, that is not what I am suggesting, and you know it.

Every family with one child that wants to keep that child on their insurance until the age of 26 has to pay the higher premium to do so. Those higher premiums more than make up the costs for preventative care for those kids, and the small percentage that end up in the hospital, and you know this as well.

 

[hal2kilo]

Pure disinformation. Trying to start a bandwagon?

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/773/fewer-voters-identify-as-republicans

Fuzzy facts from the Prof? Say it isn't so.

 

[werepossum]

God damn those whippersnappers for wanting to get a masters or PHD!

And of course, if someone wants something then the proper role of government is to give it to them - at someone else's expense, of course.

Why not just mandate that children can remain on their parents' health insurance forever, in case they want something that cannot be achieved (or at least not without some sacrifice) by age twenty-six? Why should they ever grow up when we can use government to make it possible for them to be professional gamers or cryptozoologists or holistic nail technicians and still have health care?

 

[Ausm]

So none of these new users are getting medical care?

Not one of them has gone to the doctors? Or ER? Or had a check up?

A couple million of people who didn't have insurance before now have it, but none of them are using it?

Is that what you are suggesting?

Your insuring the lowest risk group in America...DUH. The Insurance Cartels LOVED the mandate because they would rake in shitloads of dollars so they never fought this part. I guess that's why you can't understand why the Ryan's plan is ridiculous giving a voucher to a 65+ year old? Who the fuck is going to cover someone this old and in such a high risk age group.

 

[Ausm]

And of course, if someone wants something then the proper role of government is to give it to them - at someone else's expense, of course.

Why not just mandate that children can remain on their parents' health insurance forever, in case they want something that cannot be achieved (or at least not without some sacrifice) by age twenty-six? Why should they ever grow up when we can use government to make it possible for them to be professional gamers or cryptozoologists or holistic nail technicians and still have health care?

So you equate giving young Americans a helping hand to having them be on their
parents insurance for life? LOLWUt???

Your posts are getting more strange every time I take the time to read one.

 

[dank69]

And of course, if someone wants something then the proper role of government is to give it to them - at someone else's expense, of course.

...

Seriously, man, try to keep a level head. The government isn't giving anyone something at someone else's expense when it comes to the HC bill. If the parents want to keep their kids on their insurance, they still have to pay the increased premiums.

 

[Ausm]

Seriously, man, try to keep a level head. The government isn't giving anyone something at someone else's expense when it comes to the HC bill. If the parents want to keep their kids on their insurance, they still have to pay the increased premiums.

That's what I was trying to explain to PF but I don't think it was registering.

 

[werepossum]

So you equate giving young Americans a helping hand to having them be on their
parents insurance for life? LOLWUt???

Your posts are getting more strange every time I take the time to read one.

Putting aside the fact that this particular "helping hand" IS having them be on their parents' insurance, how exactly does the principle differ? We previously had a rule that one received one's majority at twenty-one, later dropped to eighteen. Then we decided that although one deserves all the benefits of majority at eighteen, one still deserves the benefits of childhood through twenty-three. Now it's twenty-six. Why not forever? Why accept some arbitrary age like twenty-six when some of these "kids" may need more?

One of the big causes of our decline is our infatuation with getting benefits without responsibilities. If one cannot be expected to provide one's own health insurance at twenty-six, why should one expect to be allowed to drive, or to drink, or to vote? One should either be an adult, with all the rights and terrors and responsibilities of being an adult, or not an adult.

 

[Ausm]

Putting aside the fact that this particular "helping hand" IS having them be on their parents' insurance, how exactly does the principle differ? We previously had a rule that one received one's majority at twenty-one, later dropped to eighteen. Then we decided that although one deserves all the benefits of majority at eighteen, one still deserves the benefits of childhood through twenty-three. Now it's twenty-six. Why not forever? Why accept some arbitrary age like twenty-six when some of these "kids" may need more?

One of the big causes of our decline is our infatuation with getting benefits without responsibilities. If one cannot be expected to provide one's own health insurance at twenty-six, why should one expect to be allowed to drive, or to drink, or to vote? One should either be an adult, with all the rights and terrors and responsibilities of being an adult, or not an adult.

You make it sound like the Democrats had to accept 26 years of age instead forever You also make it sound like all Democrats want free hand outs...Well I can tell you this Democrat worked for every fucking thing I have and NEVER had to take any hand outs.