Romney Looks Like the Next Pres

Quote from atticus:

I know I am right when they start with the ad homs. The bet was just icing. It's still open through the EOD, whoever wants it.
More...

The only thing you stated was that a Rove PAC started using their funds to aid some candidates for Senate.

Although I didn't check to see if your comment was accurate, I never disputed it.

Now you are saying you were right and I was wrong?

See what I mean about you not being too bright?
 
Quote from pspr:

The only thing you stated was that a Rove PAC started using their funds to aid some candidates for Senate.

Although I didn't check to see if your comment was accurate, I never disputed it.

Now you are saying you were right and I was wrong?

See what I mean about you not being too bright?
More...

You're full on retarded. (ad hom)

The "only thing" I stated?

You're destroying any hope that Romney had. omg.
 
Quote from atticus:

NPR: Rove to divert superPAC funds from Romney to WI and MA Senate races. I read that as giving up the ghost on the Romney election, but who knows.....
More...
Forget what you post much? You know there is some pill you can take to make you a little smarter. I don't think it will be enough to get you up to speed with normal people but you might try it anyway.
 
Quote from atticus:

Sorry I have a peeve about responding to circular BS from a guy who's attempting to represent someone else. I never stated he would opt out. I asked him if he would out of principle, and stated that traders don't often pay into the system. I probably know lucrum better than you and have no clue what his contributions are.

You want to make the World hinge on my asking him if he would opt-out. lol, when you know what his contributions are to the dollar you let us all know. THE point (I made in the next post) was that it's financial suicide to self-underwrite regardless of contribution. The old get sick and require care. Few can afford to self underwrite (regardless of contribution) and it's a piss poor wager if you do.

$120k average salary over 35y results in a $60k contribution. If you're rich and didn't contribute it's a massive asymmetric risk to self-insure. If you're rich and contributed all you're career it's still a massive asym risk to self-insure.

There is no argument to self insure; whether you've contributed or not. That's my only argument regarding Medicare.
More...

I wasn't 'representing' lucrum, i was pointing out that it isn't hypocritical to accept the benefits of something that you've been forced to pay for, whether or not you disagree in principle. That was my argument. But I'll also point out that you DO have to contribute something to receive medicare.

As for Universal healthcare being the only option for seniors.. that might be true atm, but I think there may be ways for them to get coverage privately and profitably for the insurer, in theory anyway. Think about this, if govt just passed a law requiring insurers to cover anyone who was willing to pay.. the elderly and people with preexisting conditions would have a higher premium plan, but if it was unaffordable to most (which seems possible/likely) then the insurer's could pass the cost through to everyone else. So just like we're gonna get with obamacare, the rates for the young and healthy would go higher and the rates for the unhealthy and old would go lower. If the premiums were still too high the govt could provide something like tax credits to the insurers, so they could take out the built in cost of taxes, for each senior or high risk individual that they cover. This would allow them to keep their margins in line while providing lower premiums. Now I have no idea what the premiums would actually be but the insurance companies are now being forced to cover preexisting conditions under obamacare so they have a way to make it work, which might be only higher volume, but that applies to this hypo as well. Also, this would allow us to get rid of medicare (which isn't going to last, as is) and the bureaucracy associated with it. And it keeps Congress's hands off the funds which they raid and blow on other shit.

I am almost 100% sure that you are gonna trash everything i just said, cause you're a dick.. but if you think about it, it's rational and obviously if achievable it would be less costly for the nation as a whole than universal healthcare/medicare/obamacare. And again this wasn't why I quoted you in the first place.
 
Quote from PiggyBank:

I wasn't 'representing' lucrum, i was pointing out that it isn't hypocritical to accept the benefits of something that you've been forced to pay for, whether or not you disagree in principle. That was my argument. But I'll also point out that you DO have to contribute something to receive medicare.

As for Universal healthcare being the only option for seniors.. that might be true atm, but I think there may be ways for them to get coverage privately and profitably for the insurer, in theory anyway. Think about this, if govt just passed a law requiring insurers to cover anyone who was willing to pay.. the elderly and people with preexisting conditions would have a higher premium plan, but if it was unaffordable to most (which seems likely) then the insurer's could pass the cost through to everyone else. So just like we're gonna get with obamacare, the rates for the young and healthy would go higher and the rates for the unhealthy and old would go lower. If the premiums were still too high the govt could provide something like tax credits to the insurers, so they could take out the built in cost of taxes, for each senior or high risk individual that they cover. This would allow them to keep their margins in line while providing lower premiums. Now I have no idea what the premiums would actually be but the insurance companies are now being forced to cover preexisting conditions under obamacare so they have a way to make it work, which might be only higher volume, but that applies in to this hypo as well. Also, this would allow us to get rid of medicare (which isn't going to last, as is) and the bureaucracy associated with it. And it keeps Congress's hands off the funds which they raid and blow on other shit.

I am almost 100% sure that you are gonna trash everything i just said, cause you're a dick.. but if you think about it, it's rational and obviously if achievable it would be less costly for the nation as a whole than universal healthcare/medicare/obamacare. And again this wasn't why I quoted you in the first place.
More...

I agree with some of what you state... but there isn't any practical private solution; and no solution unless we move to a universal system. The only private analog for seniors currently -- the whole and term life insurance industry. Go get a quote on a $500k policy representing a 65yo. A 20Y term policy is ~$7k/year in premium [Transamerica, ZERO pre-existing, no smoking). Of course this is simply a $500k death benefit that you pay as much as $140k into. Worst-case is a $360k return to your heirs. Please contrast that to a $60k premium ($120k avg income over 35Y) paid to Medicare for unlimited LIVING benefits that BEGINS at 65.
 
Quote from pspr:



Also, Reagan was trailing at this stage. It is in the last few days when people on the fence make their decissions that we will most likely see a larger swing towards Romney.
More...

It says a lot about current polling accuracy when Romney supporters have to go back 32 years to find inaccurate polling LOL !!!!!
 
Quote from AK Forty Seven:

It says a lot about current polling accuracy when Romney supporters have to go back 32 years to find inaccurate polling LOL !!!!!
More...

lol yes. It's all been downhill since the New Deal!
 
Quote from pspr:

It is in the last few days when people on the fence make their decissions that we will most likely see a larger swing towards Romney.
More...

Actually we will most likely see a larger swing towards the incumbent


http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/do-presidential-polls-break-toward-challengers/



"The other anomaly has been in the summer months — June, July and August. In these months, the polls have tended to low ball the position of the incumbent party’s candidate. In July polls, for instance, the incumbent-party candidate has trailed by an average of 4 points in elections since 1968. However, the incumbent-party candidate has actually won these elections by an average of a little more than 3 points. In other words, there has been a seven-point swing on average toward the incumbent party’s candidate from the July polls until November."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top