Agent what world are you living in? Who cares if they pull out? Enrollments are higher than expected, Mediaid enrollments are higher than expected, and premiums both increased less than expected and significantly less than they would have without Obamacare.
Your points make no sense, and are almost always completely irrelevant to the articles at hand.
Inflation and wage growth are linked to premiums. Therefore, they must be weighed with premium increases year over year.
Not only this, if this was special to the U.S. then it would be the PPACA. However, even nations with universal costs had lower medical costs due to the affect of the recession/s.
The article you cite is bullshit in this context. The slowdown in premium increases is relative to what the increases in premium would have been, and have been before, not in relation to wages. This is just another semi-slick example of Forbes putting out something to confuse people who don’t know about economics.
The article starts with an outright lie about premium increases slowing down before Obamacare; apparently all the whining about increased premiums is for….what exactly? He also blames the slowdown on “Obamanomics” which is an absolutely stupid statement. I guess the 800,000 jobs a month the US was losing when Obama took office was because of “Obamanomics”. What a garbage site Forbes has become.
Comparing the growth before Obamacare and after is idiotic–I think he knows this and does it to be dishonest. But, if he didn’t, he isn’t competent to write on the topic. The US population is aging. The projections were for massive increases much higher than they have been, and the slowdown is b/c of Obamacare. Using the 5-10 years before the ACA is not a valid comparison, because you are looking at a risk pool with a much younger population. The article is fraudulent from the first to the last word.
January 5, 2016 at 12:26 pm
bob says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
10
19
That is your twisting UW, not mine. You’re saying that projections (which CBO is often wrong regarding) is what your base line is, and that the projections we projected are now in actuality are much lower, and therefore, we have a net benefit (based on projections).
I’m saying that in ACTUALITY when you weigh a premium decrease you have to weigh wages. If the premium increase is low, but wage increases are also low, then the net premium affordability is down.
So if wages are up 4% and premiums are up 10%, it’s bad, if wages are up 4% and premiums are up 10% net affordability is up.
It’s not rocket science. Your political allegiances are why you just went off your rocker on a basic concept.
Forbes was only to emphasize the point, my post stands alone. Rather than attacking the source, and my character, go after the concept:
Do you debate that premiums grow slower during recessions? Answer the question.
Do some research.
January 5, 2016 at 12:33 pm
bob says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
10
17
In other words:
Every single economist weighs the economy and wages with the premium increases.
If you’re going to tell me that insurance premiums are more affordable now, you would be lying.
Are you going to try to make that argument?
Or are you going to try to say based on some PROJECTIONS in the past that it would have been even higher? At which point…The burden of proof on that is on you. Not me. Your coming in and making the statement doesn’t make it true.
My facts stand alone. They are facts. You cannot debate against what I said above as a matter of how to weigh premiums.
January 5, 2016 at 12:39 pm
bob says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
9
17
I meant to reverse the second line in premium affordability. To be up 10% wages up 4% premiums.
How about Factcheck, source quoting Kaiser in regards to premium increases?
77% is accounted for by economic factors.
You’re mocking Forbes?! Have you seen their site? I have read numerous articles on Forbes that are liberal leaning. They have opinion posts on both sides of the aisle. Which source can I use UW? Only CNN and MSNBC? You give me the company I can use and I will find you facts with them rather than opinion pieces, and then I will use those facts to make a better methodology.
Regarding your comment on the 800,000 lost jobs when Obama took office:
Comparing Obama to most recessions he has done poorly, but regardless of that are you going to try to claim that the recession recovery going slow didn’t happen?
Because Kaiser and everyone else disagrees with you. It doesn’t matter who is to blame, as you seem to suggest Obama stopped the economic apocalypse (citation needed methodology required, studies of recessions show this recession has recovered much slower and worse than Reagan’s for example)
January 5, 2016 at 2:10 pm
bob says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
10
17
Also:
Let the record show I have thrice provided sources in this article, and I have thrice defended my position with itemized numbers and refused to go on tangents on emotional discord.
So the next time I see this whole Bob doesn’t use methodology, or Bob is a troll, I hope this is kept in mind.
I expect to be treated fairly.
January 5, 2016 at 7:50 pm
UW says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19
8
You are making no sense. We should actually be talking about overall health care spending, which is even lower. Your point about wages and healthcare is way off. Yes, people would be worse off overall if health care increased but wages increased by less. But, wages are not driven by how many elderly and at risk people are in the market; the cost of health care, and the increases in premium are exogenous from the changes in wages. Obamacare has almost nothing to do with wages and the changes in wages have to do with much different factors than the health care costs.
You also claim premiums rise slower in a recession. Yes, true, but we haven’t been in a recession for almost 5 years, and the slowdown has persisted. You also criticize the CBO, but they are generally pretty accurate, and I cited them (which you ignore in your cry for sources) because they are the main group, and were the most accurate in their projections of what Obamacare would do. Basically everything I stated is covered here, but it’s not Limbaugh, so I’m sure you will ignore it.
As far as sources go the main stuff on Forbes is garbage, their way down the line contributors are OK, but only because they post so many on what are basically their blogs. Their main pieces are right-wing rubbish. Look at their dozens of predictions of runaway or hyperinflation for examples. The article you cite isn’t even comparing the slowdown in premiums to projections, it is comparing it to wages, which as stated is moronic, and irrelevant when looking at the cost of health care. It was projected to rise much faster, with the low increase in wages. The article is simply propaganda, and a talking point for the uninformed to regurgitate.
“Every single economist weighs the economy and wages with the premium increases.”
That line is 100% false; no competent economist does this when looking at the increase in health care spending, because it doesn’t get to the root cause on what effect policies are having on health care spending.
January 6, 2016 at 11:44 am
bob says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
8
17
A: You didn’t source CBO. I brought them up because even CBO is wrong. You didn’t source anyone.
B: The elderly cannot simultaneously be the reason for raising costs while as you admitted, healthcare costs are low.
C: If health care costs are low, (which my source says is 77% caused by economic factors) then you would expect, *GASP* for premium increases to be low. Who would have thought that?
D: “That line is 100% false; no competent economist does this when looking at the increase in health care spending, because it doesn’t get to the root cause on what effect policies are having on health care spending.”
No competent economist refuses to put in wages and economic factors into the equation, because THAT is not including all sides to the equation. You are playing at how I worded what I said, and are trying to twist what you said. YOU said that those factors had no substantial affect. I have proven they do.
A fact would be the actual costs going down which you yourself verified.
So you cannot simultaneously say that we shouldn’t consider premiums because health care costs are low, while saying the elderly are driving the cost up, which is basically separating premiums from health care spending which is new since PPACA, without coming to the only logical conclusion that is: IF accurate, this would mean the PPACA has to be the reason why despite all these things premiums are up. It wouldn’t explain away your elderly costs conflicting with the data of costs going down, but it would explain why premiums are not decreasing as much as they should in line with health care expenditures. Could it be that this law was done with that intent to break the system and move to single payer?
Besides which: As certain technologies become better researched their cost goes down. For example: Cancer treatments go down over time, despite there being more elderly.
Let us say that the elderly population was 20,000,000 in x time frame, and that 50 years later it was twice that, at 40,000,000. We are allowing a DOUBLING of the population.
The typical causes of death are:
Heart issues
Cancer
Sickness at old age (pneumonia)
Etc.
Let’s analyze these since 1945 in terms of cost and availability:
Has the cost of doctors gone up or down?
Has the cost to treat cancer gone up or down? Is availability up or down? Cancer treatments while always expensive, are certainly trending down.
Let’s use pneumonia: We have drugs now. So more often than not someone takes the drugs, and goes home. Most people with that scenario die either at home, or after they are taken out of the home and spend a day in the hospital.
Would it be fair to say:
Since 1965 even, the cost of these procedures and availability has doubled?
Since 1975?
Since 1985?
I would say that’s about the cut off for doubling.
This is called critical thinking. The cost of health expenditures is down due to economic factors, productivity ratios, technology, and, oddly enough, the recession.
January 6, 2016 at 7:22 pm
UW says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17
6
Bob, you are right, I forgot I deleted the CBO reference; that is where I got my data. You are disregarding them like they are wrong often. The link I provided shows multiple major projections, and the CBO was the most accurate, so you can stop dismissing the. You also act like they were incapable of seeing the economy was not booming when they made the projections for Obamacare. They knew this and factored it in, and the spending has still increased by less than they thought it would have otherwise.
As for wages, that is irrelevant in the way you use it.You were initially basically using a “real” measurement, and then when that was shown to be false switched to the cost would have increased by more if wages were growing faster. Yes, but if that were so the “real” measurement could be looked at. The wages have increased faster in the time since Obamacare than the average the 5 years before it, and the premium still increased by less than projected by the CBO (and others who projected significantly higher increases). Wages have increased slowly largely due to slack in the labor market through high unemployment and a lack of demand leading to minimal hiring. There is no reason to increase wages in that situation, but it doesn’t affect health spending, because people still get sick, age, etc., which creates demand–increased demand actually, due to an aging society.
Forbes isn’t even arguing that premiums increased less/more due to wages, just that people are worse off because wages haven’t increased as much as premiums. Taking that into account people would have been much worse off if premiums had increased by more, as projected without Obamacare, but Forbes won’t say that.
“B: The elderly cannot simultaneously be the reason for raising costs while as you admitted, healthcare costs are low.”
This is quite shocking coming from somebody in the insurance industry, although it’s poorly written so you may have meant something else. I have to assume you are in claims or lost control, or some position that does not deal with rates/math. An aging population means each year the overall people in the risk pool are older. In healthcare that means there is more risk overall in the pool, and there will be more payouts, and more expensive payouts, meaning the price necessarily has to increase. This–through the Baby Boomers aging–is one of the primary reasons health care has been expected to increase in price dramatically.
“No competent economist refuses to put in wages and economic factors into the equation, because THAT is not including all sides to the equation. You are playing at how I worded what I said, and are trying to twist what you said. YOU said that those factors had no substantial affect. I have proven they do.”
They factor in wages, they do not use it in the way you are using it, because it is not primarily explanatory to the question at hand. The way you are using it means that the REAl cost of healthcare has increased, but it is not because of wages (as stated wages have increased by more than before Obamacare, so increases would have been exponentially higher). The problem with that method is that you are not looking at what they would have done without the bill, only what has happened. Without the bill the increases would have been higher, every projection shows that. The article you look at is simply wrong; if their thesis was correct the single premiums would have increased at the same rate as the family premiums, or close to it, or really at all, because it would have been due to wages.
You even state that Obamacare hasn’t slowed less than projected, and link to that Forbes article; that isn’t what they are saying
January 8, 2016 at 6:57 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
11
4
Bob,
“A concept: Elderly cost more to provide care for:
Is a concept.
A fact would be the actual costs going down which you yourself verified.”
No, it is a fact. I don’t think you know anymore about facts and concepts than you do about economics, which is next to nothing. If you do not think elderly people need more health care than younger people you are so uniformed you are not qualified to talk about the subject.
Here is a thought experiment for you: You have two options as a health insurance company.
A: You insure 100 30 year-old men for 5 years at $500/month
B: You insure 100 65 year-old men for 5 years at $500/month
Under your idiotic claims both of these pools should have the same health care costs during the 5 years, so there is no reason to select one over the other.
It’s moronic, but also goes against reality, as has almost every claim you have made:
The program that funded Solyndra is turning a profit. Not one of you right wingers has a single talking point based in reality. Stop listening to Rush and your current events IQ increases 15 points.
January 5, 2016 at 12:37 pm
bob says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
22
21
It doesn’t matter if it is turning a profit, and stop labeling what sources people listen to.
I don’t listen to Rush, but even if I did, you would have to prove the item wrong I listened to, you cannot prove an individual wrong by association.
What matters here is that they are giving government funds to their friends for get rich quick schemes. This is not ok. Cronyism is not ok. I don’t care if the company does well or not. If you run in and give all green companies a lower tax rate, more loans, etc, you’re doing something wrong. This is the same thing people have tried to accuse republicans of doing by trying to lower what is often a 44% combined tax rate on oil companies, vs what is around a 15% combined rate on green energy. But instead of weighing actual cronyism, idiots like you come in and try to weigh the character of who is taxed, instead of the corrupt nature of the action itself. An action doesn’t suddenly become ok based on the target. Though I’m sure you’re too ignorant to know what that means.
They do that in Russia as well, in their Oligarchy,and no coincidence democrats are starting to sound as polarized as Putin supporters.
January 5, 2016 at 1:07 pm
bob says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
20
20
Also UW: Re-read my post.
I made it quite clear what my issue was in no vague terms. I said it in several different ways.
“Every time one of these idiotic democrats says they need to do something, someone gets a huge loan. Like Solyndra.”
“This is basically them giving money to their buddies.”
“This is cronyism.”
I did also make a point of saying that some of these firms are going bankrupt, and the housing industry actually collapsed through this type of cronyism. But, it’s clear that you cannot figure out my two issues here. The article I was referring to is that the government gave 145 million dollars of loans to some random person. They also went bankrupt, but who do you think got that loan? Do you think it was done ethically? That is no small sum of money. Who do you think pays for that? How effective is the government at making money? Should the government be in the business of appointing winners and losers?
More importantly: Should my tax dollars go toward some jerk giving his buddies an easy wealthy life?
January 5, 2016 at 1:23 pm
Confused says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
14
13
bob said you cannot prove an individual wrong by association
could you please remind agent of that the next time he says ‘the left/Liberals are always wrong, and the right/Conservatives are always right’? seems like he always tries to “prove” an individual is wrong solely because they voted for someone with whom he does not agree should’ve gotten the vote?
January 5, 2016 at 1:48 pm
bob says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
11
15
Confused:
You are currently doing the same thing. The only reason I could see you making this comment is that you’re trying to paint both Agent and myself out to be unreasonable and the same as yourself (self hatred?).
To state that conservatives are wrong as you do, and liberals are wrong as agent does, are generalizations…But I don’t care on those ones since everyone does it. Everyone has an allegiance. I prefer to stay on topic on the issues at hand rather than debating something that has nothing to do with this conversation.
Also: Agent has mocked republicans in the past, and republican plans. I have never seen you do that to liberals, but I may have just missed it.
January 5, 2016 at 1:52 pm
bob says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
11
14
Also:
The statement:
Democrats are Aholes
Is technically correct.
The statement republicans are aholes
Is technically correct.
You need to search for the key word: All.
I also don’t think I see agent make this type of comment. This seems to suggest he is venting about a type of democrat, or a group of democrat, or the overall influence of democrats.
That is a perfectly ok thing to do. It is the counter to you.
I don’t view you two as that different. If you paid attention you would see I only get on your rear end when either you get on mine, or you get on agent’s.
You tend to get on my rear end when I get on Ron’s.
I really don’t see it as much different.
There is one difference though: When we get into it, a lot more of the time you want to focus on these trivial items rather than debate facts with me.
And it ticks me off.
January 5, 2016 at 2:17 pm
Confused says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
9
12
I have spoken against liberals and democrats many times, but that’s okay if you don’t remember. “To state that conservatives are wrong as you do” when did I do this? I agree with conservatives a lot (decreased govt involvement in personal liberties, decreased handouts to freeloading citizens) and I agree with liberals too (the govt should not tell me what i can do with my body if i’m not hurting anyone else). I was not painting you and agent with the same brush – that’s why I asked you to remind agent when he labels someone wrong by association and I did not ask you to remind yourself of the same thing, as I was not implying you do the same. you are entitled to view me and agent as similar even though i disagree. i have never once said, and i am quoting him verbatim here, “the right is always right and the left is always wrong. if you don’t agree, then you don’t know the difference between right and wrong.” either way, my original comment and request stands: when it happens again, please remind agent that an individual is not wrong solely because they are not republican or because they voted for someone agent doesn’t think should’ve gotten the vote.
January 5, 2016 at 2:38 pm
bob says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
10
13
Your comment shows a lot about your personality.
” have never once said, and i am quoting him verbatim here, “the right is always right and the left is always wrong. if you don’t agree, then you don’t know the difference between right and wrong.” either way, my original comment and request stands: when it happens again, please remind agent that an individual is not wrong solely because they are not republican or because they voted for someone agent doesn’t think should’ve gotten the vote. Either way, my original comment and request stands: when it happens again, please remind agent that an individual is not wrong solely because they are not republican or because they voted for someone agent doesn’t think should’ve gotten the vote.”
Let’s break this down:
To start with:
1.
Agent has not said that phrase either. This is either intentional word selection or it is merely that you are now realizing what I said and are trying to defend yourself. It is likely the second, which explains a lot of your conversations actually.
2.
To move on: In order for me to say that to agent and not you, your actions must be different. How are they? He has also never said you must be a conservative to be right. He throws in insults while he debates a fact.
3.
On the other hand…You have implied many times that conservatives don’t know how to source quote or use facts. I suppose, it is technically under the same protection as I said above, however, you remove that protection when you tell me to not allow agent to do it. See my first point above. In order for me to direct his comment it must be of the nature of item 1, which you said you don’t do. I will agree given my protection of the word all not being included you don’t, but without that all, you do. You do it just the same as agent at that point.
4.
I course correct differently than you, but I have told conservatives here numerous times, and I am probably close on the quote as well: For God’s sakes guys you have a responsibility to represent the conservative side of the aisle not only dutifully, but properly. I’m sure you have seen the quote. Even disregarding that, I course correct by stating “These particular” liberals, and by not joining in one someone says “libtards”. So I have been on top of it.
5. The only reason I say I don’t recall is a safety mechanism Confused. I am quite confident that the rarity of which you insult liberals is far more rare than as often as agent mentions Rhinos, and insults his own party. You can “forgive” me for forgetting exactly what you have said and the ability to be able to run a log on all your quotes, but I’m not a computer or a know it all.
January 5, 2016 at 3:00 pm
Confused says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
11
9
agent has without a doubt said those exact words to me: “the left is wrong and the right is right. if you don’t agree, you don’t know the difference between right and wrong.”
I remember because it stuck with me how headstrong he was saying that. I remember thinking “how can I sincerely discuss something with the guy if he thinks I don’t know right from wrong solely because I don’t lean conservative on every topic”?
your first point was a definitive ‘agent never said that’ yet your last point was ‘i can’t remember every post you ever made.’ so either you don’t remember him saying that (as you can’t remember every post agent makes either) or you know for certain he never said it (so you can remember every post). I think it’s the latter.
What is more likely: you remember every post agent has ever made and know he never said it, or maybe, just maybe, you just don’t remember him making the comment when he wrote it?
and if you don’t remember him saying that, which is fine, would you agree that if he repeats that in the future that he should be called out for simply trying to prove individual(s) wrong solely by association?
January 5, 2016 at 3:02 pm
Confused says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
10
11
edit — that should have been “I think it’s the former” not “I think it’s the latter” at the end of my third paragraph.
January 5, 2016 at 4:03 pm
bob says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
8
13
“What is more likely: you remember every post agent has ever made and know he never said it, or maybe, just maybe, you just don’t remember him making the comment when he wrote it? ”
What is more likely, someone who just recently was so eager to think agent didn’t know what he was saying has a bias against agent and is remembering incorrectly, or agent said something I have never seen him say?
I’m going with the former over the latter.
Citation needed. It isn’t true just because you say it.
And I’m betting money he said something similar to what you’re saying, but he meant in politics.
You are very polarized politically. You’re basically asking for agent to not be conservative. You do act like him only a person on the left. This isn’t at all debatable. I’m not saying I don’t lean right, but it isn’t of any surprise to me, whereas to you, you are labeling why he leans right quite often. You can’t just put up this facade and act like you’re the victim and Agent is the bad guy.
Even if you were correct, I would still correct you, and go back to my other post where I said I do correct as needed, so let’s stay on the topic at hand instead of derailment.
January 5, 2016 at 4:08 pm
bob says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
8
13
Listen confused, you may not realize it but I hear what you are wanting here and it’s very immature.
When we debate arguments will always happen. When that happens it is on you to keep the debate on the facts rather than character issues, no matter how much agent supposedly does the same.
It’s on you to keep this on the fact currently. You can’t go back to Agent to make my former original comment suddenly disappear.
Whether or not agent said what you’re saying I don’t care. We aren’t 5 year olds.
My comment to UW still stands: He needs to disprove my facts and not disprove who he believes I’m associated with.
Whether or not fire is hot for example, is not relevant to whether or not Rush said it. I don’t even know what Rush says. The left has labeled Rush so well, that I have a stigma in my head that won’t even allow me to watch it. I mean for God’s sakes confused, this is part of why i *Turned* republican. I was not born that way. I still have fear to ever quote a Fox article, Hannity, Bill O’reily, Rush, or any of the conservative reps. You tell me that wasn’t beat into my head by a bunch of liberals far worse than agent, because I know for a fact it was.
In Seattle, I know the people. I know what liberalism did here.
So when I see Liberals taking the same tactics on Agent, I will always default protect him.
If you show me you’re a liberal who isn’t what I think you are (doubtful) or alternatively a situation pops up where I should speak out for you, then I will defend you.
I will not before that point.
January 5, 2016 at 4:32 pm
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
10
9
“Even if you were correct, I would still correct you” Great, now I am prepared for you to get on my case even if you agree with what I’ve said. (sarcasm) Thanks for having an open mind.
January 5, 2016 at 4:57 pm
bob says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
8
13
Actually confused, while you are still looking for republicans to basically be “close minded”
Let’s reanalyze that statement:
Even if you were correct about agent, I would still correct your slip ups, and I would still correct his. As I said above, I do correct republicans when I have to.
So what exactly do you wish of me here? Why did you post? Do you want me to go back to the last article agent did this and put a comment up?
That “open minded” phrase was always used to dominate people in my youth. Are you one of those liberals? Don’t use those words with me. They have no affect.
Some people are “open minded” to genocide. Being open minded isn’t a positive thing. It means you have squirrel morals. Also: No. I’m not open minded to fire being cold. Some things are just what they are. The open minded commentary doesn’t change them, just like above.
I will continue to comment as needed. I will not join your brigade against agent on some random post where I have no need to.
And, UW will continue to need to disprove my facts, and not attack the association.
So your comment did….What exactly confused? I think you’re guilty of doing what you accuse republicans of doing here. Think about it. You’ve been liberal long enough to know what I mean, and I’ve been liberal long enough to know what you think of conservatives and those close minded folks. It’s a weakness. Not a strength. A weakness we all have to varying degrees, but you are blind to it.
January 5, 2016 at 4:58 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
8
11
*Squirrely*
January 5, 2016 at 5:26 pm
bob says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
10
11
Confused:
For reference, I was clear on it too, you just wanted to see me say something other than I said, as I have said many times, you do this often in regards to republicans as you have a huge bias and I would argue hatred toward them that is just as large as Agent’s to liberals. I have posted the full links I will insert later on. You will see what I mean when you read it all:
“You are very polarized politically. You’re basically asking for agent to not be conservative. You do act like him only a person on the left. This isn’t at all debatable. I’m not saying I don’t lean right, but it isn’t of any surprise to me, whereas to you, you are labeling why he leans right quite often. You can’t just put up this facade and act like you’re the victim and Agent is the bad guy.”
“Even if you were correct, I would still correct you, and go back to my other post where I said I do correct as needed, so let’s stay on the topic at hand instead of derailment.”
Even if you were correct, I would still correct you (When you do things wrong) and go back to my other post (I course correct differently than you, but I have told conservatives here numerous times, and I am probably close on the quote as well: For God’s sakes guys you have a responsibility to represent the conservative side of the aisle not only dutifully, but properly. I’m sure you have seen the quote. Even disregarding that, I course correct by stating “These particular” liberals, and by not joining in one someone says “libtards”. So I have been on top of it.”)
“where I said I do correct as needed, so let’s stay on the topic at hand instead of derailment.”
“You are very polarized politically. You’re basically asking for agent to not be conservative. You do act like him only a person on the left. This isn’t at all debatable. I’m not saying I don’t lean right, but it isn’t of any surprise to me, whereas to you, you are labeling why he leans right quite often.
“You can’t just put up this facade and act like you’re the victim and Agent is the bad guy.” (Combine this with where I said Even if you were correct, I would still correct you (When you do things wrong) and it means that even if agent is the “bad guy” your bad actions will still be corrected. You cannot just focus on agent)
Can you interpret what I just put in front of you or not? Do you understand why the parenthesis are where they are?
Also, this is an important note: Because you act like there is a bad guy, and a good guy, the polarization area was very related to that overall topic. I’m pointing out your weakness here. You are apt to believe he is the bad guy, he needs to be corrected, and as such, all too often you do. You may as well be telling him: Don’t be conservative because conservatives are this way, which is proven because I have labeled you as being this way. Essentially.
Though I gather this is too much thought for one post, so I’m ending it here for you to do some reflective thought, though I could say more.
January 5, 2016 at 5:30 pm
bob says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
10
12
When I read through that whole thing Confused I realized it will be too confusing for you (moniker pun) unless you’re of the utmost caliber of intelligence.
All I can tell you is what you think I said, is only because what I did actually had a depth that you missed.
It was layered. My paragraphs are layered. They assist each other. If you do read through you should get it pretty quick. The parenthesis section shows the part above I was referring to when I said above in my original post, and that post if you interpret it properly was me saying I course correct everyone, I just do it differently than you do.
January 6, 2016 at 10:06 am
English Prof says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
11
9
I am not defending one or the other, and I am not accusing anyone of anything, and I am not trying to stir the pot, and I am not taking sides, but I completely understand Confused’s confusion with this part:
“Even if you were correct, I would still correct you” and “Even if you were correct, I would still correct you (when you are wrong).”
These two statements have drastically different meanings and, even when reading the original phrase within the context of the rest of your post, it was not clear to me that you meant to say you’d correct her/him when s/he was wrong. I can see how s/he was confused about what you really meant when simply reading what you wrote as it was not obvious you were implying the missing “when you’re wrong” qualifier at the end of the statement which completely changes the meaning of the phrase.
January 6, 2016 at 12:23 pm
bob says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
9
11
A: You’re not an English professor, one would not randomly turn up on this site.
B: Incorrect. Read again.
You are very polarized politically. You’re basically asking for agent to not be conservative. You do act like him only a person on the left. This isn’t at all debatable. I’m not saying I don’t lean right, but it isn’t of any surprise to me, whereas to you, you are labeling why he leans right quite often.
“You can’t just put up this facade and act like you’re the victim and Agent is the bad guy.”
Topic created here, topic being that you can’t act like you’re the victim and Agent is the bad guy.
“Even if you were correct, (topic remains the same, correct that agent was the bad guy, I have not changed it)
I would still correct you, (you’re correct this would be vague, EXCEPT my next sentence says:)
“And go back to my other post where I said I do correct as needed, so let’s stay on the topic at hand instead of derailment.”
Now let’s go to that paragraph I referenced, the only paragraph I mentioned correcting people in, and it is even NUMERICALLY NUMBERED Mr. “English Professor”
“4.
I course correct differently than you, but I have told conservatives here numerous times, and I am probably close on the quote as well: For God’s sakes guys you have a responsibility to represent the conservative side of the aisle not only dutifully, but properly. I’m sure you have seen the quote. Even disregarding that, I course correct by stating “These particular” liberals, and by not joining in one someone says “libtards”. So I have been on top of it.”
Now full circle: I worded that VERY intentionally to reference back to my other post. I would like to hear how you believe it wasn’t clear.
January 6, 2016 at 1:34 pm
Godot says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
13
8
Wow, Bob seems to need something more to do at work!
January 6, 2016 at 2:08 pm
English Prof says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
11
9
You dismiss the authenticity of my handle solely because I’m posting on an insurance blog? Do only folks within the insurance industry post on insurance blogs? No. I did not randomly come here; I found this article while searching for ACA data.
Am I posting in such a way that my prose implies I do not have the background I referenced in my name? The fact that you blatantly dismiss what I say I am simply because of which site I am posting on is absurd. After all, you cannot prove an individual wrong solely by association of where they post online, correct?
Relative to your comment, “I would like to hear how you believe it wasn’t clear.” I have already explained this to you, but I will do so again.
“Even if you were correct, I would still correct you, and go back to my other post where I said I do correct as needed, so let’s stay on the topic at hand instead of derailment.”
The implication of the parenthetical “I would still correct you” refers to the preceding part of the sentence which was “Even if you were correct.” Had you added the qualifier of *when you’re wrong* to your parenthetical statement, I would agree your statement is clear as day, so to speak.
Taken on its face, your statement simply read as “Even if you were correct, I would still correct you.” Your comment of “I do correct as needed” is vague – you correct *what* as needed? The way people treat Agent? How Confused talks to others here? How people argue incorrectly?
There’s no indication that your correction solely applies when someone makes an incorrect statement. All you said was you’ll correct as needed and you correct people here for more than inaccurate statements.
Let me ask you directly: would you agree that there would’ve been no confusion about your intent had you wrote “Even if you were correct *about some topics*, I would still correct you *when you are wrong about other matters*”, or something similar to that?
I am not defending one or the other, and I am not accusing anyone of anything, and I am not trying to stir the pot, and I am not taking sides. I am simply saying the way you phrased that statement, even with the context provided, makes me understand why Confused was confused about what you really meant to say.
January 6, 2016 at 4:02 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
6
12
An English professor turns up right when needed eh? You are not an English professor. I know an English graduate rather closely, and they do not apply strict English to fluid online conversations. If you are a professor you would know what I mean by that. They generally go on the fluidity of the conversation at hand.
My post dealt with a multitude of aspects, and it did so correctly. For example:
Refer to that topic. I told him even if he was right I would correct him. You’re right, regarding what? IT WASN’T SPECIFIED. It was a given considering the context of our conversation if you read the whole thing (doubtful) This means you go to the previous item specified. What was the previous item specified regarding? It was regarding whether or not I need to correct Agent for speaking out of line. It was that he was acting like agent was the bad guy, with a facade, in order to justify his actions and derail the conversation.
The part I referred back to in item 4 was clear that I correct people in regards to morality, I didn’t’ need to specify as the topic was already known. This defaults back to the original topic as well. This means we were still on topic of whether or not it is ok to dismiss arguments based on the character of a person (agent) or to go as far as calling people Libtards.
This conversation stopped being about the topic at hand a long time ago, specifically because people are taking items out of context and are saying how they should be said! So let’s pull it off of semantics and semiotics and realize the topic was clear and fluid! Also, your application of English implies you didn’t read all the conversations, because at no point would anyone have inferred I was talking about being correct in regards to topics rather than his behavior, and at no point would your fix have been correct, English Professor. Your correction would have in fact made the phrase incorrect! Confused made it clear he was talking about behavior. I had no need to position my topic at that point. If you believe I need a dictionary to speak you’re wrong, and your rules here are incorrect. This shows you are NOT an English Major.
Jesus Christ, now get lost! I don’t have time for this long of an explanation on the topic of:
Disprove the fact not associations. That lead to this!
January 6, 2016 at 4:11 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
6
13
Also:
English professor with no intellect (further proving you aren’t one)
This:
“You dismiss the authenticity of my handle solely because I’m posting on an insurance blog? ”
Is inaccurate and in context to an English professor, would never be said.
Can you figure out why, English Professor?
The word “Solely” Mr. Professor. You have given no evidence that is what you are. Whether or not you are one, is solely on you to provide evidence regarding, and solely within my ability to not believe SOLELY because you said you were one!
English Professor…Lying SOB.
January 6, 2016 at 4:18 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
6
13
Another reason I don’t believe you other than you have no proof:
You suddenly show up, just when needed, to defend confused’s confusion, in a “professional” way.
All you had to say, and all a normal english professor would have said, was:
“He probably misinterpreted you”
Instead you went full on the assault to try and make the very structure of the whole argument incorrect.
What motivation would someone have to do this I wonder?
While stating they were not choosing sides (projecting the reaction much, and preparing for it in advance?)
You knew what you had to disguise, you knew why you were commenting, and you knew why it was important to say you were a professor. You’re not. End of story.
Want to prove it? Give me your info. I’ll gladly give you a call at your University. If you are who you say you are, I’ll even buy you lunch and send you a $25 dollar meal on me.
I’m a nice guy, I would actually do this. But I’m more than certain you’re not.
January 6, 2016 at 4:22 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
6
12
Really. Take the free meal.
I want to give it to you. It would be my nice thing of the day to do.
January 6, 2016 at 4:44 pm
English Prof says:
Like or Dislike:
12
6
I am not going to post my personal information on the internet! Since you don’t have time for this, I won’t reply to anything else you wrote as that will achieve your goal of ending this conversation. Have a great night.
January 6, 2016 at 4:56 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
6
12
An expected reply.
Do you have any idea how often that excuse is given?
I will give you a pass on that one for credibility but I will not, based on the coming in with English Professor qualifications. You clearly have more important things to do as well.
January 6, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
11
6
bob,
Great job playing the bully again.
English Prof started innocently pointing out how ambiguous your crap is and could not just admit it, so you just post more of your BS to drown him/her out. Then you pound your chest like you won something.
When you, and maybe Agent, are the only ones who understand and/or believe you, it is an indication that you are not nearly as smart as you think.
January 6, 2016 at 6:18 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
5
11
SCREW YOU, RON.
I have been called a bully for being a human and being normal too often by your screwed up head!!!
It won’t be tolerated!
That “english major” turned a minor comment into a huge fiasco based on semiotics and semantics.
My words were reasonable, that reply was NOT.
Also: I have NO obligation to believe the qualifications of that poster, and I would be a FOOL to do so.
You are asking me to be an idiot, likely because you take things at face value without questioning them yourself.
I have source linked on this page, BULLY what you say I don’t do, in excess of 5 times, on the last page I commented on I did it as well, and you BULLY
Constantly get people in on saying how much I don’t source quote, boo hoo!
Bullies get people to join in, and I eat bullies for breakfast Ron, so run your mouth like that in person to someone and see what @%@%ing happens!
January 6, 2016 at 6:23 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
5
10
Beating my chest…
Really, keep your bigoted crap against conservatives OFF this site.
The ONLY reason you said that is because I’m a REPUBLICAN calling out someone’s crap, who also was wrong regarding the corrections I might add.
Even if they were right Ron, I have the right to defend myself, doubt them, and say they are probably lying, without it being stated THAT I’M BEATING MY CHEST YOU FUU@%@ING PIECE OF 2@%^%.
YOU DON’T GET TO DEGRADE ME A@#%HOLE!!!
January 6, 2016 at 6:25 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
5
11
Say the words you were wrong with how you just treated me.
I was reasonable in those posts, I called someone out, and I will not be called a bully when I didn’t so much as swear.
I merely had the audacity to question them and I’m a bully beating my chest????
THIS IS REASONABLE TO YOU??
I DEBATED THE POINT AND THAT MAKES ME SOMEONE WHO TALKS OVER EVERYONE!???
LOOK IN THE MIRROR KID!!! YOU ARGUE JUST LIKE ME. Except when I get mad, then I don’t act like a coward and I take the gloves off and punch for the face.
Which is MY right.
January 7, 2016 at 8:29 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
8
6
bob,
Thank you for proving that you are a bully, again.
You are way too thin-skinned to be debating anyone with intelligence.
Pointing out the hypocrisy of Conservatives is not been a bigot. If you do not know the difference, that is on you.
Finally, what is with the foul language? If you need to result to that, you have lost.
I win, again.
January 7, 2016 at 3:55 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
5
8
I am only doing one more reply here, and I expect everyone to get the point, Also, FYI Ron if you’re reading I didn’t even read your post. You are a troll. Agent isn’t. I don’t have time for you to into irrational discord.
So here goes:
If I went to English Professor, and said I am a licensed agent who has been in the field for going on two decades…Now allow me to show how you know nothing about the healthcare law…
Would it not be seen as my attempt to dominate the conversation based on my supposed qualifications and not actual discourse?
I was called a bully when I told someone they were not an english professor and then held my ground on the position of ONE sentence in my entire rough 10 posts.
One.
That was out of line by Ron most of all, but it was also out of line by English Professor.
My reaction while defensive was merited, and contained no more mocking than the people here on the left have done. It was proper discord, and I’m getting tired of the heavy emphasis of “He’s a republican!!! He most be crazy!” going on here.
This is part of why I’m republican. You will see it everywhere. The slightest slip up as a republican can cost you your career, whereas with democrats it’s always “Oh, they just did that, it doesn’t reflect on their ability to make decent laws” in the case of politicians, and in the case of liberals, they will literally hurl out bigotry but it’s ok because reasons!
Let’s hold the liberals here to the same standard as the conservative folks. Ok?
January 7, 2016 at 6:11 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
6
4
Typical bully move bob. Back down when challenged.
If you can’t take it, don’t dish it out.
January 7, 2016 at 6:49 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
4
7
Ron,
The typical bully backs down when faced is what you have to say here?
What you are doing is justifying that you just plainly came in with a random character attack and I got mad.
Oh look at that guy I pissed off, he’s the problem!
THAT is bully. I was NOT beating my chest, I was arguing my point, and I GET THAT RIGHT.
I only accidentally saw one post from you while reading my own. I ignore you because you’re not worth my time.
I have levels of people that make sense to debate with.
Lost hopeless morons with superiority complexes aren’t on the list. My not replying makes me a bully. My sticking up for myself makes myself a bully. My calling someone wrong makes me a bully.
Really Ron! You’re so used to this bullshit you just keep saying over reactive labels for typical arguments and then you don’t expect an over reactive reply.
You’re seeding out bull crap trying to get these replies is what I just realized, which is also the reason I backed away. I don’t have time for trolls.
January 7, 2016 at 7:01 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
4
7
Not to mention:
Bullies don’t go around protecting people (like Agent).
My comments here do bleed issues Ron, I will admit that. You however never do. You have a god complex of some sort and I hate it. As well as you, which is uncommon for me.
You know people so well what do I sound like?
Having been this type of person I spot them easily. Abused. The one who was bullied. I NEVER took authoritative measures in high school. I never talked, I never did anything to anyone. This is passive. It’s not the sign of a bully.
I was bullied. I had my head hit into a brick wall. You may ask how this is relevant. I tried to befriend some bullies, because I was that bullied. I don’t take that label as some crap statement to throw out like you do.
Now moving forward: You were literally NEVER bullied. If anything, you were the one in the crowd labeling some guy for being such an absurd conservative and preached how much better you were. Notice the wording “if” in there and how it was used, before you make comments.
I simply know you are not the type of personality that gets abused. It is a personality type sadly enough, and while you view my defensive personality as an abuser, it is typical of someone who basically was abandoned by a group, put in a corner, had the crap beaten out of him, had the women making fun of him when his girlfriend cheated, and had the men doing the girlfriend cheating, while mocking the guy the whole time.
THAT is bullying DUMB ASS. NOT someone saying “I’m pissed off at you!”. THAT is an ARGUMENT!!!!! God!!! It gets me so mad you apply these labels.
I’m done with you kid!
January 6, 2016 at 1:43 pm
FFA says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
15
4
Actu, United Health in IL has one of the broadest PPO Networks available in IL. Who Cares? Every Joe average American that has UHC (At least those in IL). Every Agent that has placed business with them cares. Every American that bough the line of Keeping your plan and keeping your doc SHOULD care.
Now, BCBS has announced they are looking into pulling out too. Of course if them two are, then Humana and Aetna and Cigna are having the same discussion behind closed doors.
If you dont work that system, then you are uninformed. If you do work the system, then you should be caring as every agent that works the system does.
FFA, a little off subject, but sorry about your Packers. It may have been a blessing in disguise since they have to travel to the Redskins in the play offs. The NFL Least may have been the better opponent than Seattle anyway.
Go Pack Go! I’m not sure how far we can, though. We don’t have an O-line and our receivers have a bad case of the dropsies this season. Although, we took a 10-6 record all the way to the title before, so it can be done.
louie, do you agree with the Eagles cutting Chip Kelley loose with a game left in the season? He burned a lot of bridges letting key players go in his short tenure in the NFL and the owner finally had enough. I did notice that Murray made a long run for a TD in the last game and he hadn’t done that all year. Kelley apparently thought he could make the Eagles go like the Ducks did in college. Wrong concept and failure was sure to follow. They say that NFL stands for Not for Long.
January 4, 2016 at 4:25 pm
louie says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20
0
Agent–
was kind of shocking they let him go before the season ended. A few months ago lots of people still believed in him. Now they’re acting like he intentionally ruined the team.
Was nice to see them use Murray yesterday, though honestly it would have been better for them to lose so they’d open the season in London next year and get a better draft pick.
Philly’s a tough town to be a sports fan.
January 4, 2016 at 5:21 pm
Agent says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18
3
louie, I think Kelley found out the owner was still in charge since he holds the purse strings. I would have to think the buy-out will be expensive to him, but there was a lot of pressure and Kelley’s methods did not work. You are right about Philly being a tough town. They will boo their hero’s at the drop of a hat if they screw up. I remember one year when the Cowboys were in their heyday, they would make snowballs and put batteries in them and throw them at the players as they left the field. The Cowboys quickly learned to keep their helmets on all the way to the locker room.
January 5, 2016 at 12:06 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
9
1
Bill Belichick once said it takes at least 4 years to turn a program around if the coach changes the system. I understand the NFL is a results-driven league, but with so much parity and random injuries that can derail a season on any given play, I’m with Bill that coaches with even a mediocre record should be given at least 4 years to prove themselves.
January 11, 2016 at 2:28 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
So louie, it has been reported that the Eagles will be interviewing Tom Coughlin for the head coach position. I would think maybe they could find a bright young assistant or even Lovie Smith to be better than Coughlin. What do you think?
January 6, 2016 at 11:37 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
11
8
Bob, Ecclesiastes 10:2 spells it all out believe it or not.
Bob, I see you are going at it with someone called English Professor who is another word parser deluxe. We have enough of those already. One thing is clear, in this great country, people from different parts of it will express themselves differently. I am often misunderstood and people read posts and then attack me with cuss words, call me a moron and the list goes on. These are the Blue States Immoderate Progressive crowd. They can’t stand it when their leader continues to screw up the country as he has for 7 years. Are we better off than we were 7 years ago? How about the economy humming along at 2-2.5% growth rate? Anybody happy with how this President has unified the country? How about that signature legislation signed in 2010? Anyone happy with how that turned out? How about that labor participation rate, lowest in almost 30 years? Bob, it has been pretty much a nightmare for millions of Americans who would like to get ahead, but are forced into entitlements to get by. This is not America and I look forward to a new beginning in 2017.
January 6, 2016 at 3:18 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
5
7
Agent — and bob if he reads this post too — I’m curious how far you’ll support Trump (this assumes you support him now, which I could very well be wrong about in the first place.)
Really just wondering if you’re currently a Trump supporter, will you continue to support him if he doesn’t win the Republican nominee but still runs for President? Or will you only support him if he’s the Republican candidate?
You’ve both accused me of this in the past, so full disclosure: there is no hidden agenda here, I will have no follow-up question or comment unless your post asks something of me, this is not meant as a “gotcha” post to get after you guys, and you should not read this as a loaded question at all.
I just want to know how you feel about supporting Trump – if you support him now, would you vote for him if he’s not the Republican candidate?
January 6, 2016 at 5:24 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
7
6
Rosenblatt:
This depends on what your definition of supporting him is.
I have defended him a few times here, but only from childish attacks.
If you mean support him if he wins the republican ticket vs Hillary Clinton or the worst possible scenario of Sanders, I would vote for Trump.
If we are asking would I give him the ticket? No.
I would go with Rand Paul or Ted Cruz.
January 6, 2016 at 7:23 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
6
5
Agent –
It is kind of absurd. Especially Ron chiming in.
That type of character assault needs to go.
Bully accusations for what I did with English Professor is far too far of an accusation.
Equal responses to equal actions right?
Like the democrat said when people “joked” about banning Trump, and he said he wouldn’t take it back because he was doing an equal response to an equal action.
January 7, 2016 at 2:08 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
4
2
Thanks for your reply, bob.
January 7, 2016 at 2:19 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
5
5
bob,
When speaking of character assaults, look no further than you and Agent.
January 7, 2016 at 6:39 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
4
3
Ron – AKA Idiot (character assault)
I personally only character assault you, when you say something stupid, LINKED TO A TOPIC AT HAND.
So let me clarify: You come in saying I’m a bully.
Is it linked to the topic at hand?
NO.
I say insults, IN PROCESS TO AN ARGUMENT as most people will do when angry.
You say character insults AS PART OF an argument.
So whether or not agent can comprehend what you’re reading, you make that relevant to whether or not he knows anything, to dismantle his argument. You don’t rely on facts.
And mostly…You try false equivalency. You sound like a @%@%ing nazi kid.
It’s why I don’t reply to you.
WE ARE NOT always the same when it benefits you, and we are NOT always bully vs purist when it benefits you, you piece of garbage (character assault not linked to the argument but rather in my defense)
January 8, 2016 at 7:27 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
2
Rosenblatt,
I really don’t like Trump that much, he’s just better than Hillary.
Have you seen Cruz’s entire plan?
I realize you may not like the tax cutting as you may not have faith in the return affects that the tax foundation is predicting, however, look at this:
This plan has been proposed in different ways by other republicans. For my dad, this would have meant huge differences, as well as most of the middle upper class (15% of the population roughly). Now that sounds like it forgets about the middle class:
However: The majority of the people in this range are people who could run businesses with substantially lower taxes, and these are the people who do start businesses. Leaving them with huge methods to create capital is a big deal. Whether through the USA, the 10% tax, the elimination of the death tax, or the removal of the payroll tax.
January 8, 2016 at 7:28 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
2
Cruz is just about the only guy that I like as much as I like Paul Ryan.
I’m unsure how much you know about Paul Ryan, but he will make a phenomenal republican presidential nomination when he is older.
January 10, 2016 at 6:01 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
10
3
Damn, you are an absolute fucking idiot if you think that Bible verse can in any way be applied to modern political phraseology 2000 years later.
Of course, if you were an actual Christian who followed the word of Jesus, instead of a fake Christian who follows the likes of Limbaugh, Bush, Trump, etc., you would be in favor of health care for all, like Jesus provided, instead of ripping on the young, Mexicans, Muslims, non-Christians, poor people, Democrats, liberals, socialists, etc.
Unfortunately for the world, and for Christianity the loudest, least intelligent, most hateful people–like you, Agent–seem to be carrying the torch for Christianity, which explains why it is diminishing in followers.
Republicans are not against healthcare for all. Perhaps you should look at Catholic voting pamphlets. They specifically state that disagreements on how best to help society are not the same as one party screwing society. What you have is a disagreement of how best to provide healthcare. Agent makes it clear that he believe universal care is bad, as do I. This isn’t solely due to spending, though it is a faction of it, it is that they cannot handle it.
B:
Jesus was not a democrat. Get over it.
C:
Linking associations and associations is absurd. Bush was not a bad president to begin with, Trump is better than Hillary, and Limbaugh is outspoken and I don’t listen to him. I’m not entirely sure agent does either. Even if he did, it is still news. Disprove the individual topics of Agent or Limbaugh. Not the person as a whole.
D: I AM A MEXICAN/SPANISH PERSON. I am not sure about agent on this one, but we both agree in many areas in terms of healthcare and economics.
“Unfortunately for the world, and for Christianity the loudest, least intelligent, most hateful people–like you, Agent–seem to be carrying the torch for Christianity, which explains why it is diminishing in followers.”
Flip it around, and it’s actually people like you. Who pretend to preach tolerance.
Agent does not go around hateful. He is charged, not hateful.
E:
January 12, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
4
0
bob,
A. Why are they against Universal health Care?
B. Maybe not, but He was very progressive and liberal for His time
January 12, 2016 at 7:02 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
4
Ron:
A:
This is definitely intentional wording. Because universal government healthcare is NOT synonymous with universal care. The government chose that name so people like you could basically get into fights about why people are against “universal” care.
B:
No. Jesus was at no point progressive or radical. Also a lie made up in time.
I have heard all the arguments regarding this, none hold water.
There is the feminist fallacy.
There is the slavery fallacy.
There is the rape fallacy.
There is the ownership fallacy.
I don’t have time to debate them all. Jesus fulfilled the covenant, he didn’t change it.
Also: Jesus was far more conservative than the people he preached to. The people he preached to, participated in every kind of sin, including homosexuality, the very thing that Jesus still sends people to hell for, (if they refuse to stop).
The fact is, Jesus is not a democrat or a republican, but there is no way he can be called a progressive either.
I am the way the light the path, there is no other way except through me.
The NARROW path. Do you not know your own religion Ron?
January 13, 2016 at 7:43 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
bob,
A. Please outline exactly what Republicans have done to make sure there is health care for all.
B. You are correct, but at the time He was far from Conservative based on the current culture. He spoke out against the establishment.
An entire religion was start because of Him, what He taught, how He worked to change the world, and His sacrifice. How much more Progressive can you get?
Jesus does not send people to Hell. The Father is the judge, not Jesus. At what point in the New Testament did He speak against homosexuality or gay marriage, marijuana use, gun control, or other Liberal issues?
January 13, 2016 at 11:53 am
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
3
A: I have had this argument with you, and we just had it in another post. You refuse to give them credit for plans that democrats blocked. You then make the mistake of thinking that just because they have majority, that they have a super majority. A small minority can block a bill. More democrats than republicans blocked republican healthcare plans. You said something to the extent of that you don’t care about proposals show me results. Well, your democrats blocked those results. If you don’t know the plans, it’s your job to research them. There were several rated to lower premiums more than the ACA and not require a mandate while giving up to $5,000 of a debit card for the poor to pay for insurance. Democrats blocked it.
B: WRONG WRONG WRONG. I only go all caps and repeat this because you are a CATHOLIC act like it!
The people of those times were NOT conservative. They were false liberal oppressive. Gay behavior was not condemned. Women were not oppressed, the property of women fallacy which is your likely argument was a method to protect women in a world where there was no suitable way of a woman living on her own. It is on you to prove that they were conservative back then, because first of all the BIBLE itself says otherwise, and second of all, something isn’t true because you say it is. In what way was Jesus liberal for the time? Keep in mind if you say “He said to love your neighbor!” or “judge not lest thee be judged” neither of these things are liberal. They are as God always was, and part of being Catholic is understanding god is NOT liberal when it comes to standards of how to be. His intent in coming was taking power away from people to judge, correct. But he also said because he came people had ZERO NADA NO excuse to sin. He came to basically tell people you go through me, or you don’t go at all. Humans will not instruct you, humans will not judge. Does that sound liberal? Those are restrictions Ron.
This is further backed up by:
Matthew 7:13
Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14″For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.
John 15:22
“But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know the One who sent Me. 22″If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23″He who hates Me hates My Father also.…
Now rather than you just SAYING something, let’s hear you back it up.
January 6, 2016 at 1:45 pm
FFA says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
15
0
THEY ARE NOT MY PACKERS. I am glad the Vikes kicked them off their high horse. I wish it would have been the bears to do so, but the Bears won the better draft pick.
FFA, I thought when you moved to Wisconsin that you became an ardent admirer of the Packers. They do have some issues right now and the offensive line cannot protect Rodgers so he is struggling and his receivers don’t get open enough. It is much the same in Foxboro with the Patriots. I don’t look for either team advancing far, but we will see. Seattle is the team no one wants to play now and the Vikes do have to play them this weekend. They had better get their chin straps tight. I thought Arizona would be better last game, but they took the night off. We will see what happens if there is a re-match. Carolina looks like the class of the NFC. Should be some interesting games, unlike the college bowls which were pretty bad in my opinion.
Bears & Cubs Fan till the end! Ride em high (sometime) ride em low (almost always). And I like the Sox too.
January 7, 2016 at 10:51 am
BS says:
Like or Dislike:
5
3
You know FAA, I liked you until you said you liked the Sox… ;)
January 7, 2016 at 2:49 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
9
2
FFA, I don’t mind telling you that I like the Cubs, Bears and Sox. I do think the Cubs have a brighter future with their young stars they have now. They came pretty close last year to go to the big dance, so it would not surprise me if they advance further next time.
January 6, 2016 at 4:06 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
9
5
Rosenblatt, that certainly sounds like a loaded question to me. By the way, you wouldn’t admit who you voted for in the last election although you said it wasn’t Obama. You don’t seem like the type to vote Republican so either you sat it out or picked some non descript candidate like a Libertarian or Rosie O’Donnell.
I am not going to say who I will vote for when we haven’t even had the first primary. After we have had a number of them and the dust settles and we hear more, then I will make up my mind. It will not be the day before the election like many so called Independents do. By the way, the movie 13 hours is coming out in the next few weeks which is the true story of Benghazi. I don’t think it will paint either Obama or Hilliary in a favorable light. She is so horrible and such a blatant lier, I can’t believe she has any supporters other than one on this blog and her Feminazi’s. She actually said the other day that the four families were lying when they said she told them she would get the video maker. Yes, I am sure they lied as the flag draped casket of their loved one was wheeled by them at Dover.
I put a disclaimer there so you’d know I had no ulterior motive. One of these days, I hope you’re able to take what I say at face value.
While I respect your stance of not deciding who you’ll be voting for at this time, that’s all you had to say. While I’m here, I’ll say this to you for at least the 5th time now.
Ready?
You still reading?
I HAVE VOTED REPUBLICAN THE PAST 4 ELECTIONS.
I hope you remember that the next time you feel the need to get on my case for being anti-Republican and anti-Conservative.
January 6, 2016 at 5:27 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
10
5
This is surprising but not entirely unbelievable.
Ron is the one I would have a hard time believing his conservative voting record.
January 6, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
10
5
Rosenblatt, you continue to shock me. Voting the Republican ticket the last 4 elections? Is that just the local ones like Ron claims to do or does that include Romney, McCain, GW twice as well? We all know who Ron voted for twice and his posts confirm it every time. Voting Republican in mid terms for Congress or the Senate does not count in my book. Please un-shock me and tell me you are talking about the last 4 Presidential elections. Forgive me, but you don’t talk like a die hard Republican or a Conservative.
January 7, 2016 at 8:22 am
Rosenblatt says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
12
9
“Voting Republican in mid terms for Congress or the Senate does not count in my book.” Oh come on man, that’s crazy. The only votes that count to you are Presidential votes?
If I’ve been fed up with my local Democratic Senators and Congressmen, and I vote to replace them with Republicans, how does that not count as showing support for Republicans?
To say the only votes that matter are ones that take place every 4 years is a little short sighted. Doesn’t the House and Senate have a lot to do with how our country is run and the direction it’s going? If that doesn’t ‘count’, should I even bother to vote in mid-term elections?
January 7, 2016 at 8:31 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
4
9
bob,
You said, “Ron is the one I would have a hard time believing his conservative voting record.”
That is because you don’t know me nearly as well as you think you do.
January 7, 2016 at 8:36 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
7
9
Rosenblatt,
It is funny how the mid-term elections don’t matter to Agent, yet those are the only ones he references when trying to say the country is against President Obama’s policies. In addition, far more people vote during Presidential elections than mid-terms. Shouldn’t those elections actually mean more?
January 7, 2016 at 9:49 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
11
7
Rosenblatt, as they say in the NFL – Common Man! You start off a political Presidential discussion on whether I or Bob would support Trump and then bragged in capitol letters that you have voted Republican the past 4 elections. When I pressed you on it, you quickly backed off and said all I cared about was Presidential elections. I am afraid you are still parsing words and you were deceptive with your question. We expect that tone from Ron since we already know his stance and how he voted. I must say that I am very disappointed in you so you can now stop asking loaded questions and trying to word parse your way out of it. It is a very unattractive quality to have. Honesty is still the best policy.
January 7, 2016 at 10:27 am
Rosenblatt says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
11
9
Agent wrote, “Voting Republican in mid terms for Congress or the Senate does not count in my book.”
Agent then wrote, “you…said all I cared about was Presidential elections. I am afraid you are still parsing words”
Sir, I simply repeated what you wrote. You literally said mid-term votes don’t count in your book. That is not me word parsing what you wrote, that is exactly what you said.
Let’s “word parse” me saying I voted Republican in the last 4 elections. I did not say last 4 MID-TERM elections or last 4 PRESIDENTIAL elections, did I? I just said the last 4 elections, right?
Last election: 2014 mid-term
2nd to last election: 2012 presidential election
3rd to last election: 2010 mid-term
4th to last election: 2008 presidential election
So the last 4 elections I voted Republican. Those were the last 4 elections this country had. I don’t see why you’re confused about my voting record.
January 7, 2016 at 2:55 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
8
5
Bob, what do you make of Rosenblatt’s latest word parsing on how he voted. He painted himself in a corner in my opinion. Notice his arrogant posting – Ready? You still reading? Then posting in capitol letters about his voting record. He also said there was no ulterior motive. I now believe he wanted us to come out as ardent Trump supporters so he could dig up something derogatory and say we were going to vote for a loser. That is common with the Progressive side. How long has Bush been berated and insulted and he hasn’t been President for 7 years?
January 7, 2016 at 3:24 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
4
7
Please bob, feel free to get involved here if you’d like.
Did I say I voted for a Republican the last 4 PRESIDENTIAL elections? Nope. That would be a lie.
Did I say I voted for a Republican in the last 4 ELECTIONS? Yes. That is 100% true.
Why would I need to clarify ELECTIONS included mid-term elections? Mid-term elections ARE elections!
“I now believe he wanted us to come out as ardent Trump supporters so he could dig up something derogatory and say we were going to vote for a loser.”
Why would you believe that?
When Bob replied about him “supporting” Trump in some way, I simply thanked him and ended it there, because that’s what I promised I would do.
January 7, 2016 at 3:59 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
8
Rosenblatt:
I’m not avoiding you but rather Ron. I just don’t even want to bother being exposed to his posts so I only just saw this.
In this scenario I agree with you, it that makes any difference.
January 7, 2016 at 4:43 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
6
8
Works for me. Thanks, bob! I’m glad you saw that conversation for what I thought it was.
Agent – can we move on now or are you still clinging to your opinion that I was word parsing, back tracking on my voting history or trying to say Trump supporters are voting for a loser?
January 7, 2016 at 4:47 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
7
8
By the way, the father of one of the brave hero’s of Benghazi said about Hilliary, I want to see her take a lie detector test about what she said to me. He apparently didn’t realize that a lie detector test would be a breeze for her. I doubt the needle would even move on every question.
January 11, 2016 at 12:13 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
4
2
FFA, those Vikes sure blew it missing a field goal from chip shot range and handing Seattle the win. From what I saw, it looked like the holder had the laces of the ball right where the kicker foot hit it. He still should have made it. Maybe he simply choked under the pressure.
Rosenblatt, I agree with some of what you said, but I don’t think Belichick ever got rid of the heart of his team at the same time while rebuilding. Kelley was way out of bounds on his changes, blew the team up and tried to put in college plays at the same time. He wore his defense out with all the three and outs when the offense could not execute. The defense would get a stop, come out, get a drink of water and had to go right back out there. You can’t play NFL football that way. No balance, no execution, wrong players for that style and he paid for it with his job. On top of that, he was arrogant.
I hear you Agent, and while I agree with some of what you said, I don’t think we can just write off Chip as a failure of a coach. I mean, he has a winning record over 3 seasons, won 10 games each of his first 2 years, and lead them to the division title once.
Just ask Oakland fans if they think two 10-win seasons and a division title over 3 years would be considered a success or failure!
Via CBSSports: “Kelly’s tenure….should be remembered for is a lesson on why coaches should be careful when they ask for complete control.
Kelly had total control of the Eagles roster, and he made several controversial moves over the past three seasons, like releasing DeSean Jackson and trading LeSean McCoy. Kelly also traded for a quarterback that didn’t really fit his system.
According to ESPN.com, Kelly’s need for personnel control is what led to his firing. Lurie offered to let Kelly keep his job if Kelly would be willing to give up personnel control, but Kelly wanted no part of that offer.
It’s impossible to know if Kelly’s system can thrive in the NFL until he has a quarterback who can run his system”
Rosenblatt, a team has to have the players to execute no matter who the coach is. Teams are generally better off having a smart General Manager who consults with the coach on needs, but then makes the right moves. I think Kelley will have a hard time getting another job in the NFL where he has total control over personnel decisions. He created strife on the team, misused his players, ie Demarco Murray among others and wore his welcome out.
So you are still trying to weasel out of your deceptive loaded question I see. Perhaps you shouldn’t have started your Presidential discussion and then bragged about voting Republican the last 4 times. You could have merely said that you voted Republican in two mid terms and two Presidential elections and there would have been no confusion. I think you like to create confusion, personally.
By the way, I hope you choose to vote Republican next time. It really doesn’t matter who the nominee is. They are all 100% better than any Progressive Socialist Democrat.
Please explain how you think I’m weaseling out of anything and I will respond to your concern. What exactly do you mean by that?
You have gotten on my case for being long-winded in the past and demanded I make shorter posts, so I wrote my sentence as simply as possible.
“I voted republican in the past 4 elections” is a simpler and quicker way of saying “I voted republican in the past 2 mid terms and the last 2 presidential elections.”
Don’t you still want me to write the short version whenever possible?
You started a discussion on Trump and Presidential politics and then quickly backed off of the subject matter and tried to intimate that you voted Republican the last 4 times leading us to believe that you voted Republican for President for four elections. I don’t really care how you say it, just be honest about what you did. You wouldn’t have burned one more calorie to clarify your position. Instead, you want to argue. That is why you are misunderstood so much and word parsing is not an attractive trait as I have told you numerous times.
I ‘backed off’ the discussion because I said I would.
When I asked the question, I told you “I will have no follow-up question or comment unless your post asks something of me.”
Aside from me not voting Republican, you did not have a question or comment for me, so I kept my word and said nothing else about that topic.
The only thing I was arguing was your incorrect statement of “You don’t seem like the type to vote Republican.” That is why I said I voted Republican in the last 4 elections.
Did I argue about anything else?
I did not lead anyone to believe I voted for a Republican PRESIDENT 4 times. I did not write that. I wrote I voted Republican in the last 4 ELECTIONS, which is 100% accurate.
Let me ask you: If you voted for republican presidents the last 4 times and republican congressmen/senators the last 4 mid term elections, how many ELECTIONS in a row did you vote republican? 4 or 8?
January 7, 2016 at 4:45 pm
Rhetorical Question? says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
Clearly that would be 8 elections, not 4.
December 31, 2015 at 5:21 pm
County Line says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
46
5
As if this news is a mystery to behold and applaud. Benefits which cost recipients nothing will always get more takers. In this case it is mostly the expense of the middle class burdened with subsidizing the new enrollees.
By passing Obamacare, The Left threw 90% of us under the bus to benefit the 10%. In large measure, that 10% gained better health coverage than we in the middle class can afford for ourselves under the new law.
There are vastly more losers than winners in this equation. The deviousness of Obamacare is in its skillfully manipulated layers unveiled at politically advantageous times for The Left. The real hammer drops as the current regime leaves the White House. Specifically, 2017 marks the end of federal tax money temporarily buoying the huge increases in Medi-Cal & Medicaid enrollment under Obamacare.
The un-Affordable Care Act is essentially slow-motion fiscal suicide.
The problem is exacerbated with the middle class electing the catastrophic plan to save premium with the assumption of being healthy and when it comes to using the plan find a limitation of doctors and high deductibles. This becomes a burden on the credit card. This is double jeopardy.
Some on this blog say I don’t have any support for my positions and nobody cares what I say.
Bob, OBob, FFA, integrity matters, Patriot, Jack, Yogi Polar Berra, County Line, Agent2, Jadefox, Dave, Wally, Always Amazed, Perplexed, uct, Steve say otherwise. We all stack up well against the few leftist trolls that permeate this site.
the fact that you felt the need to write these posts show us how insecure you really are
January 7, 2016 at 5:00 pm
Agent says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18
3
Rosenblatt, if you want to get along with me on our posts, you will stop with the word parsing and a lot less arrogance. Your believability quotient is close to zero. I had to put you on a moratorium for several months and not respond to you. We do ok on sports for the most part, but politics seem to be a problem for you. The thing that ticks me off the most is your arrogant statement – Ready? Still reading? I HAVE VOTED REPUBLICAN IN THE PAST 4 ELECTIONS. You aren’t talking to a child. I have more life experience than you do and have seen more Presidents come and go than you. You are not intellectually superior to me. Isn’t it enough that we have a current President who is Professorial and lectures to us that he knows more than we do about the country and it is his way or the highway? I will have more to say about Socialism in terms you and Ron may be able to understand. It will be very simple to understand.
Ok everyone, this is for the ones who think they know what Socialism is and don’t. This is a very practical explanation without all the technicalities of definition that people get hung up on.
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed and entire class. The class had insisted that Obama’s Socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s Plan”. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A…(substituting grades for dollars- something closer to home and more readily understood by all).
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students that studied hard were upset and the students that studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students that studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride so they studied little. The second test average was a D. No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
To their great surprise, All failed and the professor told them that Socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when the government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. Could not be any simpler than that.
1.You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take away from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
5. When half the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
This summary is what this nation has been doing since Obama took office. He famously told Joe the Plumber that he just had to spread the wealth around. Look what it has done to this country.
Problem is, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with what President Obama meant or what is happening. If that were true, the income inequality gap would be shrinking, not expanding. The economy would be shrinking, not growing. The stock market would have tanked, not prospered.
Do you think it would be fair if every each person who studied equally hard and answered the questions the same were given different grades? Believe it or not, that is what has been happening. Maybe not to you, but it’s happening. Open your eyes.
Why do actual results not matter? All yo preach is fear without proof of any damage.
January 8, 2016 at 6:45 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
5
13
Damn you are so uninformed you seem like you have to be stupid to the point I don’t understand how you function day-to-day. The “real” story has been looked into over and over. In reality this is an entirely fabricated story. A person with even a little intelligence would know by the fact that the story doesn’t mention a school, professor name, etc. After this bullshit story filtered through the idiots who copy and paste it as fact, a professor did something similar and it came back.
In that incident it was an associate professor in the department of maritime administration, and it was a course on management, not economics. He did it because the students were “rude,” and “immature,” not because of a socialism experiment. He sounds like a stupid, uninformed, piece of garbage, who was probably just angry at younger people for some nonsense reason, he might even go by the moniker, “Agent.”
There has literally never been one post on here by you that can be fact checked that I have seen be anywhere near accurate. You are just an outright uninformed dolt about everything. Good thing you only reply to the few people who write the same exact crap as you so you don’t have to experience reality, or anything different.
January 7, 2016 at 6:46 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
5
14
Agent,
Have you not picked up on the fact that most people on this site have no interest in getting along with you? Who, in their righht mind, would want to get along with someone so misinformed and disrespectful?
Rosenblatt has gone way to his way to try to be civil and all you can do is lob insults his way.
I still have no idea what you mean by “word parsing” regarding Rosenblatt’s post. He is probably the most straight forward, easy to comprehend posters. I know you would never admit it, and he may be humble enough to not either, but he is intellectually superior.
So instead of acknowledging that bob disagreed with your take on our conversation and accepting my offer to end the discussion, you decide to insult me instead.
If you want to get along me with on our posts:
1) Read only what I write
2) Do not respond to what you THINK I meant to say
3) Respond to only what I wrote
4) Take my beliefs at face value
5) Do not ignore me when I ask you a direct question
6) Stop insulting me when I have not insulted you
Rosenblatt, you have blown it again. I tried to give you a chance to respond to my posts in a respectful way, but your liberal arrogance kept getting in the way. Maybe you are familiar with an old Jewish term – That tears it. A Jew tears their clothes when they are really ticked off at someone. We are through.
I do not think “respectful” means what you think it means. You insulted me multiple times and I never once insulted you back. That is restraint, not disrespect.
Here’s is me being disrespectful: Agent, somehow your idiocy still stuns me. JEWISH people (not JEW – THAT is disrespectful you dummy!!) tear their clothes as part of Sitting Shiva and mourning the dead. It has nothing to do with being ticked off at someone.
Stick to the only thing you you know: xenophobic, insulting and trolling insults.
What a joke…
Insurers are watching closely and perhaps that is why United Healthcare will be pulling out.
Agent what world are you living in? Who cares if they pull out? Enrollments are higher than expected, Mediaid enrollments are higher than expected, and premiums both increased less than expected and significantly less than they would have without Obamacare.
Your points make no sense, and are almost always completely irrelevant to the articles at hand.
If an insurance company is pulling out, it is indicative of the ability for healthcare to run.
Various obamacare Co-ops are going bankrupt, including the largest recently. This is indicative of a system that is breaking.
Moreover: Insurance premiums have not increased less than expected.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2015/09/23/obamacare-has-not-slowed-down-premium-growth-relative-to-wages/
Inflation and wage growth are linked to premiums. Therefore, they must be weighed with premium increases year over year.
Not only this, if this was special to the U.S. then it would be the PPACA. However, even nations with universal costs had lower medical costs due to the affect of the recession/s.
I can best state this as:
Correlation does not equate to causation.
The article you cite is bullshit in this context. The slowdown in premium increases is relative to what the increases in premium would have been, and have been before, not in relation to wages. This is just another semi-slick example of Forbes putting out something to confuse people who don’t know about economics.
The article starts with an outright lie about premium increases slowing down before Obamacare; apparently all the whining about increased premiums is for….what exactly? He also blames the slowdown on “Obamanomics” which is an absolutely stupid statement. I guess the 800,000 jobs a month the US was losing when Obama took office was because of “Obamanomics”. What a garbage site Forbes has become.
Comparing the growth before Obamacare and after is idiotic–I think he knows this and does it to be dishonest. But, if he didn’t, he isn’t competent to write on the topic. The US population is aging. The projections were for massive increases much higher than they have been, and the slowdown is b/c of Obamacare. Using the 5-10 years before the ACA is not a valid comparison, because you are looking at a risk pool with a much younger population. The article is fraudulent from the first to the last word.
That is your twisting UW, not mine. You’re saying that projections (which CBO is often wrong regarding) is what your base line is, and that the projections we projected are now in actuality are much lower, and therefore, we have a net benefit (based on projections).
I’m saying that in ACTUALITY when you weigh a premium decrease you have to weigh wages. If the premium increase is low, but wage increases are also low, then the net premium affordability is down.
So if wages are up 4% and premiums are up 10%, it’s bad, if wages are up 4% and premiums are up 10% net affordability is up.
It’s not rocket science. Your political allegiances are why you just went off your rocker on a basic concept.
Forbes was only to emphasize the point, my post stands alone. Rather than attacking the source, and my character, go after the concept:
Do you debate that premiums grow slower during recessions? Answer the question.
Do some research.
In other words:
Every single economist weighs the economy and wages with the premium increases.
If you’re going to tell me that insurance premiums are more affordable now, you would be lying.
Are you going to try to make that argument?
Or are you going to try to say based on some PROJECTIONS in the past that it would have been even higher? At which point…The burden of proof on that is on you. Not me. Your coming in and making the statement doesn’t make it true.
My facts stand alone. They are facts. You cannot debate against what I said above as a matter of how to weigh premiums.
I meant to reverse the second line in premium affordability. To be up 10% wages up 4% premiums.
You get the concept.
http://www.factcheck.org/2014/11/the-great-premium-debate-continues/
UW:
How about Factcheck, source quoting Kaiser in regards to premium increases?
77% is accounted for by economic factors.
You’re mocking Forbes?! Have you seen their site? I have read numerous articles on Forbes that are liberal leaning. They have opinion posts on both sides of the aisle. Which source can I use UW? Only CNN and MSNBC? You give me the company I can use and I will find you facts with them rather than opinion pieces, and then I will use those facts to make a better methodology.
Regarding your comment on the 800,000 lost jobs when Obama took office:
Comparing Obama to most recessions he has done poorly, but regardless of that are you going to try to claim that the recession recovery going slow didn’t happen?
Because Kaiser and everyone else disagrees with you. It doesn’t matter who is to blame, as you seem to suggest Obama stopped the economic apocalypse (citation needed methodology required, studies of recessions show this recession has recovered much slower and worse than Reagan’s for example)
Also:
Let the record show I have thrice provided sources in this article, and I have thrice defended my position with itemized numbers and refused to go on tangents on emotional discord.
So the next time I see this whole Bob doesn’t use methodology, or Bob is a troll, I hope this is kept in mind.
I expect to be treated fairly.
You are making no sense. We should actually be talking about overall health care spending, which is even lower. Your point about wages and healthcare is way off. Yes, people would be worse off overall if health care increased but wages increased by less. But, wages are not driven by how many elderly and at risk people are in the market; the cost of health care, and the increases in premium are exogenous from the changes in wages. Obamacare has almost nothing to do with wages and the changes in wages have to do with much different factors than the health care costs.
You also claim premiums rise slower in a recession. Yes, true, but we haven’t been in a recession for almost 5 years, and the slowdown has persisted. You also criticize the CBO, but they are generally pretty accurate, and I cited them (which you ignore in your cry for sources) because they are the main group, and were the most accurate in their projections of what Obamacare would do. Basically everything I stated is covered here, but it’s not Limbaugh, so I’m sure you will ignore it.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2015/dec/cbo-crystal-ball-forecast-aca
As far as sources go the main stuff on Forbes is garbage, their way down the line contributors are OK, but only because they post so many on what are basically their blogs. Their main pieces are right-wing rubbish. Look at their dozens of predictions of runaway or hyperinflation for examples. The article you cite isn’t even comparing the slowdown in premiums to projections, it is comparing it to wages, which as stated is moronic, and irrelevant when looking at the cost of health care. It was projected to rise much faster, with the low increase in wages. The article is simply propaganda, and a talking point for the uninformed to regurgitate.
“Every single economist weighs the economy and wages with the premium increases.”
That line is 100% false; no competent economist does this when looking at the increase in health care spending, because it doesn’t get to the root cause on what effect policies are having on health care spending.
A: You didn’t source CBO. I brought them up because even CBO is wrong. You didn’t source anyone.
B: The elderly cannot simultaneously be the reason for raising costs while as you admitted, healthcare costs are low.
C: If health care costs are low, (which my source says is 77% caused by economic factors) then you would expect, *GASP* for premium increases to be low. Who would have thought that?
D: “That line is 100% false; no competent economist does this when looking at the increase in health care spending, because it doesn’t get to the root cause on what effect policies are having on health care spending.”
No competent economist refuses to put in wages and economic factors into the equation, because THAT is not including all sides to the equation. You are playing at how I worded what I said, and are trying to twist what you said. YOU said that those factors had no substantial affect. I have proven they do.
Are we about back on track?
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Bob, you are right, I forgot I deleted the CBO reference; that is where I got my data. You are disregarding them like they are wrong often. The link I provided shows multiple major projections, and the CBO was the most accurate, so you can stop dismissing the. You also act like they were incapable of seeing the economy was not booming when they made the projections for Obamacare. They knew this and factored it in, and the spending has still increased by less than they thought it would have otherwise.
As for wages, that is irrelevant in the way you use it.You were initially basically using a “real” measurement, and then when that was shown to be false switched to the cost would have increased by more if wages were growing faster. Yes, but if that were so the “real” measurement could be looked at. The wages have increased faster in the time since Obamacare than the average the 5 years before it, and the premium still increased by less than projected by the CBO (and others who projected significantly higher increases). Wages have increased slowly largely due to slack in the labor market through high unemployment and a lack of demand leading to minimal hiring. There is no reason to increase wages in that situation, but it doesn’t affect health spending, because people still get sick, age, etc., which creates demand–increased demand actually, due to an aging society.
Forbes isn’t even arguing that premiums increased less/more due to wages, just that people are worse off because wages haven’t increased as much as premiums. Taking that into account people would have been much worse off if premiums had increased by more, as projected without Obamacare, but Forbes won’t say that.
“B: The elderly cannot simultaneously be the reason for raising costs while as you admitted, healthcare costs are low.”
This is quite shocking coming from somebody in the insurance industry, although it’s poorly written so you may have meant something else. I have to assume you are in claims or lost control, or some position that does not deal with rates/math. An aging population means each year the overall people in the risk pool are older. In healthcare that means there is more risk overall in the pool, and there will be more payouts, and more expensive payouts, meaning the price necessarily has to increase. This–through the Baby Boomers aging–is one of the primary reasons health care has been expected to increase in price dramatically.
“No competent economist refuses to put in wages and economic factors into the equation, because THAT is not including all sides to the equation. You are playing at how I worded what I said, and are trying to twist what you said. YOU said that those factors had no substantial affect. I have proven they do.”
They factor in wages, they do not use it in the way you are using it, because it is not primarily explanatory to the question at hand. The way you are using it means that the REAl cost of healthcare has increased, but it is not because of wages (as stated wages have increased by more than before Obamacare, so increases would have been exponentially higher). The problem with that method is that you are not looking at what they would have done without the bill, only what has happened. Without the bill the increases would have been higher, every projection shows that. The article you look at is simply wrong; if their thesis was correct the single premiums would have increased at the same rate as the family premiums, or close to it, or really at all, because it would have been due to wages.
You even state that Obamacare hasn’t slowed less than projected, and link to that Forbes article; that isn’t what they are saying
Bob,
“A concept: Elderly cost more to provide care for:
Is a concept.
A fact would be the actual costs going down which you yourself verified.”
No, it is a fact. I don’t think you know anymore about facts and concepts than you do about economics, which is next to nothing. If you do not think elderly people need more health care than younger people you are so uniformed you are not qualified to talk about the subject.
Here is a thought experiment for you: You have two options as a health insurance company.
A: You insure 100 30 year-old men for 5 years at $500/month
B: You insure 100 65 year-old men for 5 years at $500/month
Under your idiotic claims both of these pools should have the same health care costs during the 5 years, so there is no reason to select one over the other.
It’s moronic, but also goes against reality, as has almost every claim you have made:
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/chc/recommendations/images/hrfig03.jpg
I might add, this is why we don’t want regulation over the medical industry to start being considered too seriously:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-12-26/obamacare-aided-insurer-almost-broke-after-145m-in-loans
Every time one of these idiotic democrats says they need to do something, someone gets a huge loan. Like Solyndra.
This is basically them giving money to their buddies.
This is cronyism. Over regulation leads to this. Market place competition leads to better rates.
That’s how it works.
You can make some regulations and be safe, but the democrats are on the wrong side of “safe” regulations.
I have done the research and this is for a fact exactly how the housing industry collapsed.
We don’t need it to happen in the medical as well.
The program that funded Solyndra is turning a profit. Not one of you right wingers has a single talking point based in reality. Stop listening to Rush and your current events IQ increases 15 points.
It doesn’t matter if it is turning a profit, and stop labeling what sources people listen to.
I don’t listen to Rush, but even if I did, you would have to prove the item wrong I listened to, you cannot prove an individual wrong by association.
What matters here is that they are giving government funds to their friends for get rich quick schemes. This is not ok. Cronyism is not ok. I don’t care if the company does well or not. If you run in and give all green companies a lower tax rate, more loans, etc, you’re doing something wrong. This is the same thing people have tried to accuse republicans of doing by trying to lower what is often a 44% combined tax rate on oil companies, vs what is around a 15% combined rate on green energy. But instead of weighing actual cronyism, idiots like you come in and try to weigh the character of who is taxed, instead of the corrupt nature of the action itself. An action doesn’t suddenly become ok based on the target. Though I’m sure you’re too ignorant to know what that means.
They do that in Russia as well, in their Oligarchy,and no coincidence democrats are starting to sound as polarized as Putin supporters.
Also UW: Re-read my post.
I made it quite clear what my issue was in no vague terms. I said it in several different ways.
“Every time one of these idiotic democrats says they need to do something, someone gets a huge loan. Like Solyndra.”
“This is basically them giving money to their buddies.”
“This is cronyism.”
I did also make a point of saying that some of these firms are going bankrupt, and the housing industry actually collapsed through this type of cronyism. But, it’s clear that you cannot figure out my two issues here. The article I was referring to is that the government gave 145 million dollars of loans to some random person. They also went bankrupt, but who do you think got that loan? Do you think it was done ethically? That is no small sum of money. Who do you think pays for that? How effective is the government at making money? Should the government be in the business of appointing winners and losers?
More importantly: Should my tax dollars go toward some jerk giving his buddies an easy wealthy life?
bob said you cannot prove an individual wrong by association
could you please remind agent of that the next time he says ‘the left/Liberals are always wrong, and the right/Conservatives are always right’? seems like he always tries to “prove” an individual is wrong solely because they voted for someone with whom he does not agree should’ve gotten the vote?
Confused:
You are currently doing the same thing. The only reason I could see you making this comment is that you’re trying to paint both Agent and myself out to be unreasonable and the same as yourself (self hatred?).
To state that conservatives are wrong as you do, and liberals are wrong as agent does, are generalizations…But I don’t care on those ones since everyone does it. Everyone has an allegiance. I prefer to stay on topic on the issues at hand rather than debating something that has nothing to do with this conversation.
Also: Agent has mocked republicans in the past, and republican plans. I have never seen you do that to liberals, but I may have just missed it.
Also:
The statement:
Democrats are Aholes
Is technically correct.
The statement republicans are aholes
Is technically correct.
You need to search for the key word: All.
I also don’t think I see agent make this type of comment. This seems to suggest he is venting about a type of democrat, or a group of democrat, or the overall influence of democrats.
That is a perfectly ok thing to do. It is the counter to you.
I don’t view you two as that different. If you paid attention you would see I only get on your rear end when either you get on mine, or you get on agent’s.
You tend to get on my rear end when I get on Ron’s.
I really don’t see it as much different.
There is one difference though: When we get into it, a lot more of the time you want to focus on these trivial items rather than debate facts with me.
And it ticks me off.
I have spoken against liberals and democrats many times, but that’s okay if you don’t remember. “To state that conservatives are wrong as you do” when did I do this? I agree with conservatives a lot (decreased govt involvement in personal liberties, decreased handouts to freeloading citizens) and I agree with liberals too (the govt should not tell me what i can do with my body if i’m not hurting anyone else). I was not painting you and agent with the same brush – that’s why I asked you to remind agent when he labels someone wrong by association and I did not ask you to remind yourself of the same thing, as I was not implying you do the same. you are entitled to view me and agent as similar even though i disagree. i have never once said, and i am quoting him verbatim here, “the right is always right and the left is always wrong. if you don’t agree, then you don’t know the difference between right and wrong.” either way, my original comment and request stands: when it happens again, please remind agent that an individual is not wrong solely because they are not republican or because they voted for someone agent doesn’t think should’ve gotten the vote.
Your comment shows a lot about your personality.
” have never once said, and i am quoting him verbatim here, “the right is always right and the left is always wrong. if you don’t agree, then you don’t know the difference between right and wrong.” either way, my original comment and request stands: when it happens again, please remind agent that an individual is not wrong solely because they are not republican or because they voted for someone agent doesn’t think should’ve gotten the vote. Either way, my original comment and request stands: when it happens again, please remind agent that an individual is not wrong solely because they are not republican or because they voted for someone agent doesn’t think should’ve gotten the vote.”
Let’s break this down:
To start with:
1.
Agent has not said that phrase either. This is either intentional word selection or it is merely that you are now realizing what I said and are trying to defend yourself. It is likely the second, which explains a lot of your conversations actually.
2.
To move on: In order for me to say that to agent and not you, your actions must be different. How are they? He has also never said you must be a conservative to be right. He throws in insults while he debates a fact.
3.
On the other hand…You have implied many times that conservatives don’t know how to source quote or use facts. I suppose, it is technically under the same protection as I said above, however, you remove that protection when you tell me to not allow agent to do it. See my first point above. In order for me to direct his comment it must be of the nature of item 1, which you said you don’t do. I will agree given my protection of the word all not being included you don’t, but without that all, you do. You do it just the same as agent at that point.
4.
I course correct differently than you, but I have told conservatives here numerous times, and I am probably close on the quote as well: For God’s sakes guys you have a responsibility to represent the conservative side of the aisle not only dutifully, but properly. I’m sure you have seen the quote. Even disregarding that, I course correct by stating “These particular” liberals, and by not joining in one someone says “libtards”. So I have been on top of it.
5. The only reason I say I don’t recall is a safety mechanism Confused. I am quite confident that the rarity of which you insult liberals is far more rare than as often as agent mentions Rhinos, and insults his own party. You can “forgive” me for forgetting exactly what you have said and the ability to be able to run a log on all your quotes, but I’m not a computer or a know it all.
agent has without a doubt said those exact words to me: “the left is wrong and the right is right. if you don’t agree, you don’t know the difference between right and wrong.”
I remember because it stuck with me how headstrong he was saying that. I remember thinking “how can I sincerely discuss something with the guy if he thinks I don’t know right from wrong solely because I don’t lean conservative on every topic”?
your first point was a definitive ‘agent never said that’ yet your last point was ‘i can’t remember every post you ever made.’ so either you don’t remember him saying that (as you can’t remember every post agent makes either) or you know for certain he never said it (so you can remember every post). I think it’s the latter.
What is more likely: you remember every post agent has ever made and know he never said it, or maybe, just maybe, you just don’t remember him making the comment when he wrote it?
and if you don’t remember him saying that, which is fine, would you agree that if he repeats that in the future that he should be called out for simply trying to prove individual(s) wrong solely by association?
edit — that should have been “I think it’s the former” not “I think it’s the latter” at the end of my third paragraph.
“What is more likely: you remember every post agent has ever made and know he never said it, or maybe, just maybe, you just don’t remember him making the comment when he wrote it? ”
What is more likely, someone who just recently was so eager to think agent didn’t know what he was saying has a bias against agent and is remembering incorrectly, or agent said something I have never seen him say?
I’m going with the former over the latter.
Citation needed. It isn’t true just because you say it.
And I’m betting money he said something similar to what you’re saying, but he meant in politics.
You are very polarized politically. You’re basically asking for agent to not be conservative. You do act like him only a person on the left. This isn’t at all debatable. I’m not saying I don’t lean right, but it isn’t of any surprise to me, whereas to you, you are labeling why he leans right quite often. You can’t just put up this facade and act like you’re the victim and Agent is the bad guy.
Even if you were correct, I would still correct you, and go back to my other post where I said I do correct as needed, so let’s stay on the topic at hand instead of derailment.
Listen confused, you may not realize it but I hear what you are wanting here and it’s very immature.
When we debate arguments will always happen. When that happens it is on you to keep the debate on the facts rather than character issues, no matter how much agent supposedly does the same.
It’s on you to keep this on the fact currently. You can’t go back to Agent to make my former original comment suddenly disappear.
Whether or not agent said what you’re saying I don’t care. We aren’t 5 year olds.
My comment to UW still stands: He needs to disprove my facts and not disprove who he believes I’m associated with.
Whether or not fire is hot for example, is not relevant to whether or not Rush said it. I don’t even know what Rush says. The left has labeled Rush so well, that I have a stigma in my head that won’t even allow me to watch it. I mean for God’s sakes confused, this is part of why i *Turned* republican. I was not born that way. I still have fear to ever quote a Fox article, Hannity, Bill O’reily, Rush, or any of the conservative reps. You tell me that wasn’t beat into my head by a bunch of liberals far worse than agent, because I know for a fact it was.
In Seattle, I know the people. I know what liberalism did here.
So when I see Liberals taking the same tactics on Agent, I will always default protect him.
If you show me you’re a liberal who isn’t what I think you are (doubtful) or alternatively a situation pops up where I should speak out for you, then I will defend you.
I will not before that point.
“Even if you were correct, I would still correct you” Great, now I am prepared for you to get on my case even if you agree with what I’ve said. (sarcasm) Thanks for having an open mind.
Actually confused, while you are still looking for republicans to basically be “close minded”
Let’s reanalyze that statement:
Even if you were correct about agent, I would still correct your slip ups, and I would still correct his. As I said above, I do correct republicans when I have to.
So what exactly do you wish of me here? Why did you post? Do you want me to go back to the last article agent did this and put a comment up?
That “open minded” phrase was always used to dominate people in my youth. Are you one of those liberals? Don’t use those words with me. They have no affect.
Some people are “open minded” to genocide. Being open minded isn’t a positive thing. It means you have squirrel morals. Also: No. I’m not open minded to fire being cold. Some things are just what they are. The open minded commentary doesn’t change them, just like above.
I will continue to comment as needed. I will not join your brigade against agent on some random post where I have no need to.
And, UW will continue to need to disprove my facts, and not attack the association.
So your comment did….What exactly confused? I think you’re guilty of doing what you accuse republicans of doing here. Think about it. You’ve been liberal long enough to know what I mean, and I’ve been liberal long enough to know what you think of conservatives and those close minded folks. It’s a weakness. Not a strength. A weakness we all have to varying degrees, but you are blind to it.
*Squirrely*
Confused:
For reference, I was clear on it too, you just wanted to see me say something other than I said, as I have said many times, you do this often in regards to republicans as you have a huge bias and I would argue hatred toward them that is just as large as Agent’s to liberals. I have posted the full links I will insert later on. You will see what I mean when you read it all:
“You are very polarized politically. You’re basically asking for agent to not be conservative. You do act like him only a person on the left. This isn’t at all debatable. I’m not saying I don’t lean right, but it isn’t of any surprise to me, whereas to you, you are labeling why he leans right quite often. You can’t just put up this facade and act like you’re the victim and Agent is the bad guy.”
“Even if you were correct, I would still correct you, and go back to my other post where I said I do correct as needed, so let’s stay on the topic at hand instead of derailment.”
Even if you were correct, I would still correct you (When you do things wrong) and go back to my other post (I course correct differently than you, but I have told conservatives here numerous times, and I am probably close on the quote as well: For God’s sakes guys you have a responsibility to represent the conservative side of the aisle not only dutifully, but properly. I’m sure you have seen the quote. Even disregarding that, I course correct by stating “These particular” liberals, and by not joining in one someone says “libtards”. So I have been on top of it.”)
“where I said I do correct as needed, so let’s stay on the topic at hand instead of derailment.”
“You are very polarized politically. You’re basically asking for agent to not be conservative. You do act like him only a person on the left. This isn’t at all debatable. I’m not saying I don’t lean right, but it isn’t of any surprise to me, whereas to you, you are labeling why he leans right quite often.
“You can’t just put up this facade and act like you’re the victim and Agent is the bad guy.” (Combine this with where I said Even if you were correct, I would still correct you (When you do things wrong) and it means that even if agent is the “bad guy” your bad actions will still be corrected. You cannot just focus on agent)
Can you interpret what I just put in front of you or not? Do you understand why the parenthesis are where they are?
Also, this is an important note: Because you act like there is a bad guy, and a good guy, the polarization area was very related to that overall topic. I’m pointing out your weakness here. You are apt to believe he is the bad guy, he needs to be corrected, and as such, all too often you do. You may as well be telling him: Don’t be conservative because conservatives are this way, which is proven because I have labeled you as being this way. Essentially.
Though I gather this is too much thought for one post, so I’m ending it here for you to do some reflective thought, though I could say more.
When I read through that whole thing Confused I realized it will be too confusing for you (moniker pun) unless you’re of the utmost caliber of intelligence.
All I can tell you is what you think I said, is only because what I did actually had a depth that you missed.
It was layered. My paragraphs are layered. They assist each other. If you do read through you should get it pretty quick. The parenthesis section shows the part above I was referring to when I said above in my original post, and that post if you interpret it properly was me saying I course correct everyone, I just do it differently than you do.
I am not defending one or the other, and I am not accusing anyone of anything, and I am not trying to stir the pot, and I am not taking sides, but I completely understand Confused’s confusion with this part:
“Even if you were correct, I would still correct you” and “Even if you were correct, I would still correct you (when you are wrong).”
These two statements have drastically different meanings and, even when reading the original phrase within the context of the rest of your post, it was not clear to me that you meant to say you’d correct her/him when s/he was wrong. I can see how s/he was confused about what you really meant when simply reading what you wrote as it was not obvious you were implying the missing “when you’re wrong” qualifier at the end of the statement which completely changes the meaning of the phrase.
A: You’re not an English professor, one would not randomly turn up on this site.
B: Incorrect. Read again.
You are very polarized politically. You’re basically asking for agent to not be conservative. You do act like him only a person on the left. This isn’t at all debatable. I’m not saying I don’t lean right, but it isn’t of any surprise to me, whereas to you, you are labeling why he leans right quite often.
“You can’t just put up this facade and act like you’re the victim and Agent is the bad guy.”
Topic created here, topic being that you can’t act like you’re the victim and Agent is the bad guy.
“Even if you were correct, (topic remains the same, correct that agent was the bad guy, I have not changed it)
I would still correct you, (you’re correct this would be vague, EXCEPT my next sentence says:)
“And go back to my other post where I said I do correct as needed, so let’s stay on the topic at hand instead of derailment.”
Now let’s go to that paragraph I referenced, the only paragraph I mentioned correcting people in, and it is even NUMERICALLY NUMBERED Mr. “English Professor”
“4.
I course correct differently than you, but I have told conservatives here numerous times, and I am probably close on the quote as well: For God’s sakes guys you have a responsibility to represent the conservative side of the aisle not only dutifully, but properly. I’m sure you have seen the quote. Even disregarding that, I course correct by stating “These particular” liberals, and by not joining in one someone says “libtards”. So I have been on top of it.”
Now full circle: I worded that VERY intentionally to reference back to my other post. I would like to hear how you believe it wasn’t clear.
Wow, Bob seems to need something more to do at work!
You dismiss the authenticity of my handle solely because I’m posting on an insurance blog? Do only folks within the insurance industry post on insurance blogs? No. I did not randomly come here; I found this article while searching for ACA data.
Am I posting in such a way that my prose implies I do not have the background I referenced in my name? The fact that you blatantly dismiss what I say I am simply because of which site I am posting on is absurd. After all, you cannot prove an individual wrong solely by association of where they post online, correct?
Relative to your comment, “I would like to hear how you believe it wasn’t clear.” I have already explained this to you, but I will do so again.
“Even if you were correct, I would still correct you, and go back to my other post where I said I do correct as needed, so let’s stay on the topic at hand instead of derailment.”
The implication of the parenthetical “I would still correct you” refers to the preceding part of the sentence which was “Even if you were correct.” Had you added the qualifier of *when you’re wrong* to your parenthetical statement, I would agree your statement is clear as day, so to speak.
Taken on its face, your statement simply read as “Even if you were correct, I would still correct you.” Your comment of “I do correct as needed” is vague – you correct *what* as needed? The way people treat Agent? How Confused talks to others here? How people argue incorrectly?
There’s no indication that your correction solely applies when someone makes an incorrect statement. All you said was you’ll correct as needed and you correct people here for more than inaccurate statements.
Let me ask you directly: would you agree that there would’ve been no confusion about your intent had you wrote “Even if you were correct *about some topics*, I would still correct you *when you are wrong about other matters*”, or something similar to that?
I am not defending one or the other, and I am not accusing anyone of anything, and I am not trying to stir the pot, and I am not taking sides. I am simply saying the way you phrased that statement, even with the context provided, makes me understand why Confused was confused about what you really meant to say.
An English professor turns up right when needed eh? You are not an English professor. I know an English graduate rather closely, and they do not apply strict English to fluid online conversations. If you are a professor you would know what I mean by that. They generally go on the fluidity of the conversation at hand.
My post dealt with a multitude of aspects, and it did so correctly. For example:
Refer to that topic. I told him even if he was right I would correct him. You’re right, regarding what? IT WASN’T SPECIFIED. It was a given considering the context of our conversation if you read the whole thing (doubtful) This means you go to the previous item specified. What was the previous item specified regarding? It was regarding whether or not I need to correct Agent for speaking out of line. It was that he was acting like agent was the bad guy, with a facade, in order to justify his actions and derail the conversation.
The part I referred back to in item 4 was clear that I correct people in regards to morality, I didn’t’ need to specify as the topic was already known. This defaults back to the original topic as well. This means we were still on topic of whether or not it is ok to dismiss arguments based on the character of a person (agent) or to go as far as calling people Libtards.
This conversation stopped being about the topic at hand a long time ago, specifically because people are taking items out of context and are saying how they should be said! So let’s pull it off of semantics and semiotics and realize the topic was clear and fluid! Also, your application of English implies you didn’t read all the conversations, because at no point would anyone have inferred I was talking about being correct in regards to topics rather than his behavior, and at no point would your fix have been correct, English Professor. Your correction would have in fact made the phrase incorrect! Confused made it clear he was talking about behavior. I had no need to position my topic at that point. If you believe I need a dictionary to speak you’re wrong, and your rules here are incorrect. This shows you are NOT an English Major.
Jesus Christ, now get lost! I don’t have time for this long of an explanation on the topic of:
Disprove the fact not associations. That lead to this!
Also:
English professor with no intellect (further proving you aren’t one)
This:
“You dismiss the authenticity of my handle solely because I’m posting on an insurance blog? ”
Is inaccurate and in context to an English professor, would never be said.
Can you figure out why, English Professor?
The word “Solely” Mr. Professor. You have given no evidence that is what you are. Whether or not you are one, is solely on you to provide evidence regarding, and solely within my ability to not believe SOLELY because you said you were one!
English Professor…Lying SOB.
Another reason I don’t believe you other than you have no proof:
You suddenly show up, just when needed, to defend confused’s confusion, in a “professional” way.
All you had to say, and all a normal english professor would have said, was:
“He probably misinterpreted you”
Instead you went full on the assault to try and make the very structure of the whole argument incorrect.
What motivation would someone have to do this I wonder?
While stating they were not choosing sides (projecting the reaction much, and preparing for it in advance?)
You knew what you had to disguise, you knew why you were commenting, and you knew why it was important to say you were a professor. You’re not. End of story.
Want to prove it? Give me your info. I’ll gladly give you a call at your University. If you are who you say you are, I’ll even buy you lunch and send you a $25 dollar meal on me.
I’m a nice guy, I would actually do this. But I’m more than certain you’re not.
Really. Take the free meal.
I want to give it to you. It would be my nice thing of the day to do.
I am not going to post my personal information on the internet! Since you don’t have time for this, I won’t reply to anything else you wrote as that will achieve your goal of ending this conversation. Have a great night.
An expected reply.
Do you have any idea how often that excuse is given?
I will give you a pass on that one for credibility but I will not, based on the coming in with English Professor qualifications. You clearly have more important things to do as well.
bob,
Great job playing the bully again.
English Prof started innocently pointing out how ambiguous your crap is and could not just admit it, so you just post more of your BS to drown him/her out. Then you pound your chest like you won something.
When you, and maybe Agent, are the only ones who understand and/or believe you, it is an indication that you are not nearly as smart as you think.
SCREW YOU, RON.
I have been called a bully for being a human and being normal too often by your screwed up head!!!
It won’t be tolerated!
That “english major” turned a minor comment into a huge fiasco based on semiotics and semantics.
My words were reasonable, that reply was NOT.
Also: I have NO obligation to believe the qualifications of that poster, and I would be a FOOL to do so.
You are asking me to be an idiot, likely because you take things at face value without questioning them yourself.
I have source linked on this page, BULLY what you say I don’t do, in excess of 5 times, on the last page I commented on I did it as well, and you BULLY
Constantly get people in on saying how much I don’t source quote, boo hoo!
Bullies get people to join in, and I eat bullies for breakfast Ron, so run your mouth like that in person to someone and see what @%@%ing happens!
Beating my chest…
Really, keep your bigoted crap against conservatives OFF this site.
The ONLY reason you said that is because I’m a REPUBLICAN calling out someone’s crap, who also was wrong regarding the corrections I might add.
Even if they were right Ron, I have the right to defend myself, doubt them, and say they are probably lying, without it being stated THAT I’M BEATING MY CHEST YOU FUU@%@ING PIECE OF 2@%^%.
YOU DON’T GET TO DEGRADE ME A@#%HOLE!!!
Say the words you were wrong with how you just treated me.
I was reasonable in those posts, I called someone out, and I will not be called a bully when I didn’t so much as swear.
I merely had the audacity to question them and I’m a bully beating my chest????
THIS IS REASONABLE TO YOU??
I DEBATED THE POINT AND THAT MAKES ME SOMEONE WHO TALKS OVER EVERYONE!???
LOOK IN THE MIRROR KID!!! YOU ARGUE JUST LIKE ME. Except when I get mad, then I don’t act like a coward and I take the gloves off and punch for the face.
Which is MY right.
bob,
Thank you for proving that you are a bully, again.
You are way too thin-skinned to be debating anyone with intelligence.
Pointing out the hypocrisy of Conservatives is not been a bigot. If you do not know the difference, that is on you.
Finally, what is with the foul language? If you need to result to that, you have lost.
I win, again.
I am only doing one more reply here, and I expect everyone to get the point, Also, FYI Ron if you’re reading I didn’t even read your post. You are a troll. Agent isn’t. I don’t have time for you to into irrational discord.
So here goes:
If I went to English Professor, and said I am a licensed agent who has been in the field for going on two decades…Now allow me to show how you know nothing about the healthcare law…
Would it not be seen as my attempt to dominate the conversation based on my supposed qualifications and not actual discourse?
I was called a bully when I told someone they were not an english professor and then held my ground on the position of ONE sentence in my entire rough 10 posts.
One.
That was out of line by Ron most of all, but it was also out of line by English Professor.
My reaction while defensive was merited, and contained no more mocking than the people here on the left have done. It was proper discord, and I’m getting tired of the heavy emphasis of “He’s a republican!!! He most be crazy!” going on here.
This is part of why I’m republican. You will see it everywhere. The slightest slip up as a republican can cost you your career, whereas with democrats it’s always “Oh, they just did that, it doesn’t reflect on their ability to make decent laws” in the case of politicians, and in the case of liberals, they will literally hurl out bigotry but it’s ok because reasons!
Let’s hold the liberals here to the same standard as the conservative folks. Ok?
Typical bully move bob. Back down when challenged.
If you can’t take it, don’t dish it out.
Ron,
The typical bully backs down when faced is what you have to say here?
What you are doing is justifying that you just plainly came in with a random character attack and I got mad.
Oh look at that guy I pissed off, he’s the problem!
THAT is bully. I was NOT beating my chest, I was arguing my point, and I GET THAT RIGHT.
I only accidentally saw one post from you while reading my own. I ignore you because you’re not worth my time.
I have levels of people that make sense to debate with.
Lost hopeless morons with superiority complexes aren’t on the list. My not replying makes me a bully. My sticking up for myself makes myself a bully. My calling someone wrong makes me a bully.
Really Ron! You’re so used to this bullshit you just keep saying over reactive labels for typical arguments and then you don’t expect an over reactive reply.
You’re seeding out bull crap trying to get these replies is what I just realized, which is also the reason I backed away. I don’t have time for trolls.
Not to mention:
Bullies don’t go around protecting people (like Agent).
My comments here do bleed issues Ron, I will admit that. You however never do. You have a god complex of some sort and I hate it. As well as you, which is uncommon for me.
You know people so well what do I sound like?
Having been this type of person I spot them easily. Abused. The one who was bullied. I NEVER took authoritative measures in high school. I never talked, I never did anything to anyone. This is passive. It’s not the sign of a bully.
I was bullied. I had my head hit into a brick wall. You may ask how this is relevant. I tried to befriend some bullies, because I was that bullied. I don’t take that label as some crap statement to throw out like you do.
Now moving forward: You were literally NEVER bullied. If anything, you were the one in the crowd labeling some guy for being such an absurd conservative and preached how much better you were. Notice the wording “if” in there and how it was used, before you make comments.
I simply know you are not the type of personality that gets abused. It is a personality type sadly enough, and while you view my defensive personality as an abuser, it is typical of someone who basically was abandoned by a group, put in a corner, had the crap beaten out of him, had the women making fun of him when his girlfriend cheated, and had the men doing the girlfriend cheating, while mocking the guy the whole time.
THAT is bullying DUMB ASS. NOT someone saying “I’m pissed off at you!”. THAT is an ARGUMENT!!!!! God!!! It gets me so mad you apply these labels.
I’m done with you kid!
Actu, United Health in IL has one of the broadest PPO Networks available in IL. Who Cares? Every Joe average American that has UHC (At least those in IL). Every Agent that has placed business with them cares. Every American that bough the line of Keeping your plan and keeping your doc SHOULD care.
Now, BCBS has announced they are looking into pulling out too. Of course if them two are, then Humana and Aetna and Cigna are having the same discussion behind closed doors.
If you dont work that system, then you are uninformed. If you do work the system, then you should be caring as every agent that works the system does.
FFA, a little off subject, but sorry about your Packers. It may have been a blessing in disguise since they have to travel to the Redskins in the play offs. The NFL Least may have been the better opponent than Seattle anyway.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Eagles fan here. Not much sympathy.
louie, do you agree with the Eagles cutting Chip Kelley loose with a game left in the season? He burned a lot of bridges letting key players go in his short tenure in the NFL and the owner finally had enough. I did notice that Murray made a long run for a TD in the last game and he hadn’t done that all year. Kelley apparently thought he could make the Eagles go like the Ducks did in college. Wrong concept and failure was sure to follow. They say that NFL stands for Not for Long.
Agent–
was kind of shocking they let him go before the season ended. A few months ago lots of people still believed in him. Now they’re acting like he intentionally ruined the team.
Was nice to see them use Murray yesterday, though honestly it would have been better for them to lose so they’d open the season in London next year and get a better draft pick.
Philly’s a tough town to be a sports fan.
louie, I think Kelley found out the owner was still in charge since he holds the purse strings. I would have to think the buy-out will be expensive to him, but there was a lot of pressure and Kelley’s methods did not work. You are right about Philly being a tough town. They will boo their hero’s at the drop of a hat if they screw up. I remember one year when the Cowboys were in their heyday, they would make snowballs and put batteries in them and throw them at the players as they left the field. The Cowboys quickly learned to keep their helmets on all the way to the locker room.
Bill Belichick once said it takes at least 4 years to turn a program around if the coach changes the system. I understand the NFL is a results-driven league, but with so much parity and random injuries that can derail a season on any given play, I’m with Bill that coaches with even a mediocre record should be given at least 4 years to prove themselves.
So louie, it has been reported that the Eagles will be interviewing Tom Coughlin for the head coach position. I would think maybe they could find a bright young assistant or even Lovie Smith to be better than Coughlin. What do you think?
Bob, Ecclesiastes 10:2 spells it all out believe it or not.
Agent,
Thank you! This is what Confused was talking about.
This is why he thinks you have said that someone who is a leftist is always wrong.
I knew it would not be anything near what he claimed it to be. Inclines/leans. This means it causes one to be wrong more often than not.
This is no different than what he says to you.
Bob, I see you are going at it with someone called English Professor who is another word parser deluxe. We have enough of those already. One thing is clear, in this great country, people from different parts of it will express themselves differently. I am often misunderstood and people read posts and then attack me with cuss words, call me a moron and the list goes on. These are the Blue States Immoderate Progressive crowd. They can’t stand it when their leader continues to screw up the country as he has for 7 years. Are we better off than we were 7 years ago? How about the economy humming along at 2-2.5% growth rate? Anybody happy with how this President has unified the country? How about that signature legislation signed in 2010? Anyone happy with how that turned out? How about that labor participation rate, lowest in almost 30 years? Bob, it has been pretty much a nightmare for millions of Americans who would like to get ahead, but are forced into entitlements to get by. This is not America and I look forward to a new beginning in 2017.
Agent — and bob if he reads this post too — I’m curious how far you’ll support Trump (this assumes you support him now, which I could very well be wrong about in the first place.)
Really just wondering if you’re currently a Trump supporter, will you continue to support him if he doesn’t win the Republican nominee but still runs for President? Or will you only support him if he’s the Republican candidate?
You’ve both accused me of this in the past, so full disclosure: there is no hidden agenda here, I will have no follow-up question or comment unless your post asks something of me, this is not meant as a “gotcha” post to get after you guys, and you should not read this as a loaded question at all.
I just want to know how you feel about supporting Trump – if you support him now, would you vote for him if he’s not the Republican candidate?
Rosenblatt:
This depends on what your definition of supporting him is.
I have defended him a few times here, but only from childish attacks.
If you mean support him if he wins the republican ticket vs Hillary Clinton or the worst possible scenario of Sanders, I would vote for Trump.
If we are asking would I give him the ticket? No.
I would go with Rand Paul or Ted Cruz.
Agent –
It is kind of absurd. Especially Ron chiming in.
That type of character assault needs to go.
Bully accusations for what I did with English Professor is far too far of an accusation.
Equal responses to equal actions right?
Like the democrat said when people “joked” about banning Trump, and he said he wouldn’t take it back because he was doing an equal response to an equal action.
Thanks for your reply, bob.
bob,
When speaking of character assaults, look no further than you and Agent.
Ron – AKA Idiot (character assault)
I personally only character assault you, when you say something stupid, LINKED TO A TOPIC AT HAND.
So let me clarify: You come in saying I’m a bully.
Is it linked to the topic at hand?
NO.
I say insults, IN PROCESS TO AN ARGUMENT as most people will do when angry.
You say character insults AS PART OF an argument.
So whether or not agent can comprehend what you’re reading, you make that relevant to whether or not he knows anything, to dismantle his argument. You don’t rely on facts.
And mostly…You try false equivalency. You sound like a @%@%ing nazi kid.
It’s why I don’t reply to you.
WE ARE NOT always the same when it benefits you, and we are NOT always bully vs purist when it benefits you, you piece of garbage (character assault not linked to the argument but rather in my defense)
Rosenblatt,
I really don’t like Trump that much, he’s just better than Hillary.
Have you seen Cruz’s entire plan?
I realize you may not like the tax cutting as you may not have faith in the return affects that the tax foundation is predicting, however, look at this:
https://www.tedcruz.org/tax_plan/
Pay attention to the USA accounts.
This plan has been proposed in different ways by other republicans. For my dad, this would have meant huge differences, as well as most of the middle upper class (15% of the population roughly). Now that sounds like it forgets about the middle class:
However: The majority of the people in this range are people who could run businesses with substantially lower taxes, and these are the people who do start businesses. Leaving them with huge methods to create capital is a big deal. Whether through the USA, the 10% tax, the elimination of the death tax, or the removal of the payroll tax.
Cruz is just about the only guy that I like as much as I like Paul Ryan.
I’m unsure how much you know about Paul Ryan, but he will make a phenomenal republican presidential nomination when he is older.
Damn, you are an absolute fucking idiot if you think that Bible verse can in any way be applied to modern political phraseology 2000 years later.
Of course, if you were an actual Christian who followed the word of Jesus, instead of a fake Christian who follows the likes of Limbaugh, Bush, Trump, etc., you would be in favor of health care for all, like Jesus provided, instead of ripping on the young, Mexicans, Muslims, non-Christians, poor people, Democrats, liberals, socialists, etc.
Unfortunately for the world, and for Christianity the loudest, least intelligent, most hateful people–like you, Agent–seem to be carrying the torch for Christianity, which explains why it is diminishing in followers.
A:
Republicans are not against healthcare for all. Perhaps you should look at Catholic voting pamphlets. They specifically state that disagreements on how best to help society are not the same as one party screwing society. What you have is a disagreement of how best to provide healthcare. Agent makes it clear that he believe universal care is bad, as do I. This isn’t solely due to spending, though it is a faction of it, it is that they cannot handle it.
B:
Jesus was not a democrat. Get over it.
C:
Linking associations and associations is absurd. Bush was not a bad president to begin with, Trump is better than Hillary, and Limbaugh is outspoken and I don’t listen to him. I’m not entirely sure agent does either. Even if he did, it is still news. Disprove the individual topics of Agent or Limbaugh. Not the person as a whole.
D: I AM A MEXICAN/SPANISH PERSON. I am not sure about agent on this one, but we both agree in many areas in terms of healthcare and economics.
“Unfortunately for the world, and for Christianity the loudest, least intelligent, most hateful people–like you, Agent–seem to be carrying the torch for Christianity, which explains why it is diminishing in followers.”
Flip it around, and it’s actually people like you. Who pretend to preach tolerance.
Agent does not go around hateful. He is charged, not hateful.
E:
bob,
A. Why are they against Universal health Care?
B. Maybe not, but He was very progressive and liberal for His time
Ron:
A:
This is definitely intentional wording. Because universal government healthcare is NOT synonymous with universal care. The government chose that name so people like you could basically get into fights about why people are against “universal” care.
B:
No. Jesus was at no point progressive or radical. Also a lie made up in time.
I have heard all the arguments regarding this, none hold water.
There is the feminist fallacy.
There is the slavery fallacy.
There is the rape fallacy.
There is the ownership fallacy.
I don’t have time to debate them all. Jesus fulfilled the covenant, he didn’t change it.
Also: Jesus was far more conservative than the people he preached to. The people he preached to, participated in every kind of sin, including homosexuality, the very thing that Jesus still sends people to hell for, (if they refuse to stop).
The fact is, Jesus is not a democrat or a republican, but there is no way he can be called a progressive either.
I am the way the light the path, there is no other way except through me.
The NARROW path. Do you not know your own religion Ron?
bob,
A. Please outline exactly what Republicans have done to make sure there is health care for all.
B. You are correct, but at the time He was far from Conservative based on the current culture. He spoke out against the establishment.
An entire religion was start because of Him, what He taught, how He worked to change the world, and His sacrifice. How much more Progressive can you get?
Jesus does not send people to Hell. The Father is the judge, not Jesus. At what point in the New Testament did He speak against homosexuality or gay marriage, marijuana use, gun control, or other Liberal issues?
A: I have had this argument with you, and we just had it in another post. You refuse to give them credit for plans that democrats blocked. You then make the mistake of thinking that just because they have majority, that they have a super majority. A small minority can block a bill. More democrats than republicans blocked republican healthcare plans. You said something to the extent of that you don’t care about proposals show me results. Well, your democrats blocked those results. If you don’t know the plans, it’s your job to research them. There were several rated to lower premiums more than the ACA and not require a mandate while giving up to $5,000 of a debit card for the poor to pay for insurance. Democrats blocked it.
B: WRONG WRONG WRONG. I only go all caps and repeat this because you are a CATHOLIC act like it!
The people of those times were NOT conservative. They were false liberal oppressive. Gay behavior was not condemned. Women were not oppressed, the property of women fallacy which is your likely argument was a method to protect women in a world where there was no suitable way of a woman living on her own. It is on you to prove that they were conservative back then, because first of all the BIBLE itself says otherwise, and second of all, something isn’t true because you say it is. In what way was Jesus liberal for the time? Keep in mind if you say “He said to love your neighbor!” or “judge not lest thee be judged” neither of these things are liberal. They are as God always was, and part of being Catholic is understanding god is NOT liberal when it comes to standards of how to be. His intent in coming was taking power away from people to judge, correct. But he also said because he came people had ZERO NADA NO excuse to sin. He came to basically tell people you go through me, or you don’t go at all. Humans will not instruct you, humans will not judge. Does that sound liberal? Those are restrictions Ron.
This is further backed up by:
Matthew 7:13
Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14″For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.
John 15:22
“But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know the One who sent Me. 22″If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23″He who hates Me hates My Father also.…
Now rather than you just SAYING something, let’s hear you back it up.
THEY ARE NOT MY PACKERS. I am glad the Vikes kicked them off their high horse. I wish it would have been the bears to do so, but the Bears won the better draft pick.
FFA, I thought when you moved to Wisconsin that you became an ardent admirer of the Packers. They do have some issues right now and the offensive line cannot protect Rodgers so he is struggling and his receivers don’t get open enough. It is much the same in Foxboro with the Patriots. I don’t look for either team advancing far, but we will see. Seattle is the team no one wants to play now and the Vikes do have to play them this weekend. They had better get their chin straps tight. I thought Arizona would be better last game, but they took the night off. We will see what happens if there is a re-match. Carolina looks like the class of the NFC. Should be some interesting games, unlike the college bowls which were pretty bad in my opinion.
Bears & Cubs Fan till the end! Ride em high (sometime) ride em low (almost always). And I like the Sox too.
You know FAA, I liked you until you said you liked the Sox… ;)
FFA, I don’t mind telling you that I like the Cubs, Bears and Sox. I do think the Cubs have a brighter future with their young stars they have now. They came pretty close last year to go to the big dance, so it would not surprise me if they advance further next time.
Rosenblatt, that certainly sounds like a loaded question to me. By the way, you wouldn’t admit who you voted for in the last election although you said it wasn’t Obama. You don’t seem like the type to vote Republican so either you sat it out or picked some non descript candidate like a Libertarian or Rosie O’Donnell.
I am not going to say who I will vote for when we haven’t even had the first primary. After we have had a number of them and the dust settles and we hear more, then I will make up my mind. It will not be the day before the election like many so called Independents do. By the way, the movie 13 hours is coming out in the next few weeks which is the true story of Benghazi. I don’t think it will paint either Obama or Hilliary in a favorable light. She is so horrible and such a blatant lier, I can’t believe she has any supporters other than one on this blog and her Feminazi’s. She actually said the other day that the four families were lying when they said she told them she would get the video maker. Yes, I am sure they lied as the flag draped casket of their loved one was wheeled by them at Dover.
I put a disclaimer there so you’d know I had no ulterior motive. One of these days, I hope you’re able to take what I say at face value.
While I respect your stance of not deciding who you’ll be voting for at this time, that’s all you had to say. While I’m here, I’ll say this to you for at least the 5th time now.
Ready?
You still reading?
I HAVE VOTED REPUBLICAN THE PAST 4 ELECTIONS.
I hope you remember that the next time you feel the need to get on my case for being anti-Republican and anti-Conservative.
This is surprising but not entirely unbelievable.
Ron is the one I would have a hard time believing his conservative voting record.
Rosenblatt, you continue to shock me. Voting the Republican ticket the last 4 elections? Is that just the local ones like Ron claims to do or does that include Romney, McCain, GW twice as well? We all know who Ron voted for twice and his posts confirm it every time. Voting Republican in mid terms for Congress or the Senate does not count in my book. Please un-shock me and tell me you are talking about the last 4 Presidential elections. Forgive me, but you don’t talk like a die hard Republican or a Conservative.
“Voting Republican in mid terms for Congress or the Senate does not count in my book.” Oh come on man, that’s crazy. The only votes that count to you are Presidential votes?
If I’ve been fed up with my local Democratic Senators and Congressmen, and I vote to replace them with Republicans, how does that not count as showing support for Republicans?
To say the only votes that matter are ones that take place every 4 years is a little short sighted. Doesn’t the House and Senate have a lot to do with how our country is run and the direction it’s going? If that doesn’t ‘count’, should I even bother to vote in mid-term elections?
bob,
You said, “Ron is the one I would have a hard time believing his conservative voting record.”
That is because you don’t know me nearly as well as you think you do.
Rosenblatt,
It is funny how the mid-term elections don’t matter to Agent, yet those are the only ones he references when trying to say the country is against President Obama’s policies. In addition, far more people vote during Presidential elections than mid-terms. Shouldn’t those elections actually mean more?
Rosenblatt, as they say in the NFL – Common Man! You start off a political Presidential discussion on whether I or Bob would support Trump and then bragged in capitol letters that you have voted Republican the past 4 elections. When I pressed you on it, you quickly backed off and said all I cared about was Presidential elections. I am afraid you are still parsing words and you were deceptive with your question. We expect that tone from Ron since we already know his stance and how he voted. I must say that I am very disappointed in you so you can now stop asking loaded questions and trying to word parse your way out of it. It is a very unattractive quality to have. Honesty is still the best policy.
Agent wrote, “Voting Republican in mid terms for Congress or the Senate does not count in my book.”
Agent then wrote, “you…said all I cared about was Presidential elections. I am afraid you are still parsing words”
Sir, I simply repeated what you wrote. You literally said mid-term votes don’t count in your book. That is not me word parsing what you wrote, that is exactly what you said.
Let’s “word parse” me saying I voted Republican in the last 4 elections. I did not say last 4 MID-TERM elections or last 4 PRESIDENTIAL elections, did I? I just said the last 4 elections, right?
Last election: 2014 mid-term
2nd to last election: 2012 presidential election
3rd to last election: 2010 mid-term
4th to last election: 2008 presidential election
So the last 4 elections I voted Republican. Those were the last 4 elections this country had. I don’t see why you’re confused about my voting record.
Bob, what do you make of Rosenblatt’s latest word parsing on how he voted. He painted himself in a corner in my opinion. Notice his arrogant posting – Ready? You still reading? Then posting in capitol letters about his voting record. He also said there was no ulterior motive. I now believe he wanted us to come out as ardent Trump supporters so he could dig up something derogatory and say we were going to vote for a loser. That is common with the Progressive side. How long has Bush been berated and insulted and he hasn’t been President for 7 years?
Please bob, feel free to get involved here if you’d like.
Did I say I voted for a Republican the last 4 PRESIDENTIAL elections? Nope. That would be a lie.
Did I say I voted for a Republican in the last 4 ELECTIONS? Yes. That is 100% true.
Why would I need to clarify ELECTIONS included mid-term elections? Mid-term elections ARE elections!
“I now believe he wanted us to come out as ardent Trump supporters so he could dig up something derogatory and say we were going to vote for a loser.”
Why would you believe that?
When Bob replied about him “supporting” Trump in some way, I simply thanked him and ended it there, because that’s what I promised I would do.
Rosenblatt:
I’m not avoiding you but rather Ron. I just don’t even want to bother being exposed to his posts so I only just saw this.
In this scenario I agree with you, it that makes any difference.
Works for me. Thanks, bob! I’m glad you saw that conversation for what I thought it was.
Agent – can we move on now or are you still clinging to your opinion that I was word parsing, back tracking on my voting history or trying to say Trump supporters are voting for a loser?
By the way, the father of one of the brave hero’s of Benghazi said about Hilliary, I want to see her take a lie detector test about what she said to me. He apparently didn’t realize that a lie detector test would be a breeze for her. I doubt the needle would even move on every question.
FFA, those Vikes sure blew it missing a field goal from chip shot range and handing Seattle the win. From what I saw, it looked like the holder had the laces of the ball right where the kicker foot hit it. He still should have made it. Maybe he simply choked under the pressure.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Rosenblatt, I agree with some of what you said, but I don’t think Belichick ever got rid of the heart of his team at the same time while rebuilding. Kelley was way out of bounds on his changes, blew the team up and tried to put in college plays at the same time. He wore his defense out with all the three and outs when the offense could not execute. The defense would get a stop, come out, get a drink of water and had to go right back out there. You can’t play NFL football that way. No balance, no execution, wrong players for that style and he paid for it with his job. On top of that, he was arrogant.
I hear you Agent, and while I agree with some of what you said, I don’t think we can just write off Chip as a failure of a coach. I mean, he has a winning record over 3 seasons, won 10 games each of his first 2 years, and lead them to the division title once.
Just ask Oakland fans if they think two 10-win seasons and a division title over 3 years would be considered a success or failure!
Via CBSSports: “Kelly’s tenure….should be remembered for is a lesson on why coaches should be careful when they ask for complete control.
Kelly had total control of the Eagles roster, and he made several controversial moves over the past three seasons, like releasing DeSean Jackson and trading LeSean McCoy. Kelly also traded for a quarterback that didn’t really fit his system.
According to ESPN.com, Kelly’s need for personnel control is what led to his firing. Lurie offered to let Kelly keep his job if Kelly would be willing to give up personnel control, but Kelly wanted no part of that offer.
It’s impossible to know if Kelly’s system can thrive in the NFL until he has a quarterback who can run his system”
Rosenblatt, a team has to have the players to execute no matter who the coach is. Teams are generally better off having a smart General Manager who consults with the coach on needs, but then makes the right moves. I think Kelley will have a hard time getting another job in the NFL where he has total control over personnel decisions. He created strife on the team, misused his players, ie Demarco Murray among others and wore his welcome out.
So you are still trying to weasel out of your deceptive loaded question I see. Perhaps you shouldn’t have started your Presidential discussion and then bragged about voting Republican the last 4 times. You could have merely said that you voted Republican in two mid terms and two Presidential elections and there would have been no confusion. I think you like to create confusion, personally.
By the way, I hope you choose to vote Republican next time. It really doesn’t matter who the nominee is. They are all 100% better than any Progressive Socialist Democrat.
Please explain how you think I’m weaseling out of anything and I will respond to your concern. What exactly do you mean by that?
You have gotten on my case for being long-winded in the past and demanded I make shorter posts, so I wrote my sentence as simply as possible.
“I voted republican in the past 4 elections” is a simpler and quicker way of saying “I voted republican in the past 2 mid terms and the last 2 presidential elections.”
Don’t you still want me to write the short version whenever possible?
You started a discussion on Trump and Presidential politics and then quickly backed off of the subject matter and tried to intimate that you voted Republican the last 4 times leading us to believe that you voted Republican for President for four elections. I don’t really care how you say it, just be honest about what you did. You wouldn’t have burned one more calorie to clarify your position. Instead, you want to argue. That is why you are misunderstood so much and word parsing is not an attractive trait as I have told you numerous times.
I ‘backed off’ the discussion because I said I would.
When I asked the question, I told you “I will have no follow-up question or comment unless your post asks something of me.”
Aside from me not voting Republican, you did not have a question or comment for me, so I kept my word and said nothing else about that topic.
The only thing I was arguing was your incorrect statement of “You don’t seem like the type to vote Republican.” That is why I said I voted Republican in the last 4 elections.
Did I argue about anything else?
I did not lead anyone to believe I voted for a Republican PRESIDENT 4 times. I did not write that. I wrote I voted Republican in the last 4 ELECTIONS, which is 100% accurate.
Let me ask you: If you voted for republican presidents the last 4 times and republican congressmen/senators the last 4 mid term elections, how many ELECTIONS in a row did you vote republican? 4 or 8?
Clearly that would be 8 elections, not 4.
As if this news is a mystery to behold and applaud. Benefits which cost recipients nothing will always get more takers. In this case it is mostly the expense of the middle class burdened with subsidizing the new enrollees.
By passing Obamacare, The Left threw 90% of us under the bus to benefit the 10%. In large measure, that 10% gained better health coverage than we in the middle class can afford for ourselves under the new law.
There are vastly more losers than winners in this equation. The deviousness of Obamacare is in its skillfully manipulated layers unveiled at politically advantageous times for The Left. The real hammer drops as the current regime leaves the White House. Specifically, 2017 marks the end of federal tax money temporarily buoying the huge increases in Medi-Cal & Medicaid enrollment under Obamacare.
The un-Affordable Care Act is essentially slow-motion fiscal suicide.
County Line, well said. You hit the nail on the head.
The problem is exacerbated with the middle class electing the catastrophic plan to save premium with the assumption of being healthy and when it comes to using the plan find a limitation of doctors and high deductibles. This becomes a burden on the credit card. This is double jeopardy.
Some on this blog say I don’t have any support for my positions and nobody cares what I say.
Bob, OBob, FFA, integrity matters, Patriot, Jack, Yogi Polar Berra, County Line, Agent2, Jadefox, Dave, Wally, Always Amazed, Perplexed, uct, Steve say otherwise. We all stack up well against the few leftist trolls that permeate this site.
Add UW Supreme to the list. Sorry!
the fact that you felt the need to write these posts show us how insecure you really are
Rosenblatt, if you want to get along with me on our posts, you will stop with the word parsing and a lot less arrogance. Your believability quotient is close to zero. I had to put you on a moratorium for several months and not respond to you. We do ok on sports for the most part, but politics seem to be a problem for you. The thing that ticks me off the most is your arrogant statement – Ready? Still reading? I HAVE VOTED REPUBLICAN IN THE PAST 4 ELECTIONS. You aren’t talking to a child. I have more life experience than you do and have seen more Presidents come and go than you. You are not intellectually superior to me. Isn’t it enough that we have a current President who is Professorial and lectures to us that he knows more than we do about the country and it is his way or the highway? I will have more to say about Socialism in terms you and Ron may be able to understand. It will be very simple to understand.
Ok everyone, this is for the ones who think they know what Socialism is and don’t. This is a very practical explanation without all the technicalities of definition that people get hung up on.
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed and entire class. The class had insisted that Obama’s Socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s Plan”. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A…(substituting grades for dollars- something closer to home and more readily understood by all).
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students that studied hard were upset and the students that studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students that studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride so they studied little. The second test average was a D. No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
To their great surprise, All failed and the professor told them that Socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when the government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. Could not be any simpler than that.
1.You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take away from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
5. When half the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
This summary is what this nation has been doing since Obama took office. He famously told Joe the Plumber that he just had to spread the wealth around. Look what it has done to this country.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Damn you are so uninformed you seem like you have to be stupid to the point I don’t understand how you function day-to-day. The “real” story has been looked into over and over. In reality this is an entirely fabricated story. A person with even a little intelligence would know by the fact that the story doesn’t mention a school, professor name, etc. After this bullshit story filtered through the idiots who copy and paste it as fact, a professor did something similar and it came back.
In that incident it was an associate professor in the department of maritime administration, and it was a course on management, not economics. He did it because the students were “rude,” and “immature,” not because of a socialism experiment. He sounds like a stupid, uninformed, piece of garbage, who was probably just angry at younger people for some nonsense reason, he might even go by the moniker, “Agent.”
There has literally never been one post on here by you that can be fact checked that I have seen be anywhere near accurate. You are just an outright uninformed dolt about everything. Good thing you only reply to the few people who write the same exact crap as you so you don’t have to experience reality, or anything different.
Agent,
Have you not picked up on the fact that most people on this site have no interest in getting along with you? Who, in their righht mind, would want to get along with someone so misinformed and disrespectful?
Rosenblatt has gone way to his way to try to be civil and all you can do is lob insults his way.
I still have no idea what you mean by “word parsing” regarding Rosenblatt’s post. He is probably the most straight forward, easy to comprehend posters. I know you would never admit it, and he may be humble enough to not either, but he is intellectually superior.
So instead of acknowledging that bob disagreed with your take on our conversation and accepting my offer to end the discussion, you decide to insult me instead.
If you want to get along me with on our posts:
1) Read only what I write
2) Do not respond to what you THINK I meant to say
3) Respond to only what I wrote
4) Take my beliefs at face value
5) Do not ignore me when I ask you a direct question
6) Stop insulting me when I have not insulted you
Rosenblatt, you have blown it again. I tried to give you a chance to respond to my posts in a respectful way, but your liberal arrogance kept getting in the way. Maybe you are familiar with an old Jewish term – That tears it. A Jew tears their clothes when they are really ticked off at someone. We are through.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.