U.S. Government Shutdown

[Armstrong 1st MRB]

@ O'Gara

Perhaps you're right about the money involved, it still makes no sense to me why the Tea Party are resorting to this tactic. If this situation were to be resolved tonight(which I doubt), that would still be close to 5 billion dollars of your money down the toilet. For a party that you claim is highly concerned about getting rid of all this debt you guys have without raising taxes, they sure don't seem to have qualms about risking pissing the entire treasury away over something that has basically been made law. I don't know about you, but I've never seen a country pay off its debt when it has no capital to use.

To be honest with you, I don't trust the Tea Party at all, the policies I've heard them talk about are unrealistic. How the hell are you guys going to pay off any of your debt in any reasonable amount of time without raising taxes I don't understand at all, because you have no major industries left that make anywhere near that amount of money. Not to mention that any corporations that do make a significant amount of money won't be taxed under them, and you guys don't really have any liquidable assets that you guys are willing to sell that would come anywhere close to paying that debt off.

In any case, with your idea about the twenty years plan, I wish it were that easy. Here is your average modern politician's and party's primary concern that governs all of their decisions: getting re-elected. A twenty year plan will not work in a system where the ruling party can change within 4 years, because I'll bet you that as soon as such a plan is implemented and an election happens, that plan will go through so many changes that it'll be unrecognizable. None of the parties are willing to compromise on anything if they are enemies, that's the message I'm getting from what I'm seeing down there, and its the same shit up here in Canada(or Ontario at least).

As for that incident today, that most certainly is not going to help the situation, regardless of the circumstances and its only going to get worse the closer to October 17th this drags on I'll wager.

[O'Gara 1st MRB]

@ O'Gara

Perhaps you're right about the money involved, it still makes no sense to me why the Tea Party are resorting to this tactic. If this situation were to be resolved tonight(which I doubt), that would still be close to 5 billion dollars of your money down the toilet. For a party that you claim is highly concerned about getting rid of all this debt you guys have without raising taxes, they sure don't seem to have qualms about risking pissing the entire treasury away over something that has basically been made law. I don't know about you, but I've never seen a country pay off its debt when it has no capital to use.

To be honest with you, I don't trust the Tea Party at all, the policies I've heard them talk about are unrealistic. How the hell are you guys going to pay off any of your debt in any reasonable amount of time without raising taxes I don't understand at all, because you have no major industries left that make anywhere near that amount of money. Not to mention that any corporations that do make a significant amount of money won't be taxed under them, and you guys don't really have any liquidable assets that you guys are willing to sell that would come anywhere close to paying that debt off.

In any case, with your idea about the twenty years plan, I wish it were that easy. Here is your average modern politician's and party's primary concern that governs all of their decisions: getting re-elected. A twenty year plan will not work in a system where the ruling party can change within 4 years, because I'll bet you that as soon as such a plan is implemented and an election happens, that plan will go through so many changes that it'll be unrecognizable. None of the parties are willing to compromise on anything if they are enemies, that's the message I'm getting from what I'm seeing down there, and its the same shit up here in Canada(or Ontario at least).

As for that incident today, that most certainly is not going to help the situation, regardless of the circumstances and its only going to get worse the closer to October 17th this drags on I'll wager.

[/quote

Let me break it down.

Tea party wants seats in Govt and does not care if they are Democrat or Republican They will run against them both and take seats. Thus their motive.

5 Billion to the government is like one tenth of one penny. The money you keep referring to is offset by not paying wages and other things. Thus it is really no REAL MONEY.

The GOP is not in power and has no ability to save any money under this administration. Again the reported money the news keeps talking about is a drop in the bucket, like one tenth on a penny. Even if they had the answer to eliminating the debt and have God himself vouching for them the Dems will not pass their fix.

Corporations employ people the less taxes they pay the more they have to employ, win win

No capital to use? Our GDP is more than half the countries in this world combined.. don't worry about us we will be fine in 2=8 years.

My 20 year plan can actually work in less than 7 years. It may take at least 5-8 years to get a plan like that in place due to the partisian politics. In the past we retired trillion dollar debt under bill Clinton in less than 4 years. Again don't worry about us we are fine.

JP

Edited October 4, 2013 by O'Gara 1st MRB

[O'Gara 1st MRB]

The funny thing is that so many of the countries would love to see the USA go bankrupt and break up into individual states/countries, who worry about themselves and don't care about the global issues. They forget that the only thing from keeping the wolf at bay is the USA. If this were to happen the rest of the world would see what Russia and China are really like.

[Perrone]

Sorry O'Gara, but too be as respectful as possible, you are wrong.

The Tea Party is nothing more then bought and paid for stooges of corporations; most notably the Koch Brothers... who literally front rolled and co-opted the movement from the start and still the biggest money behind the movement. The Tea Party will of course remove anyone, Republican or Democrat, who don't match their extremely partisan political view points and threaten anyone who doesn't tow the line with them... and that's why we are currently in the situation we find ourselves in.

So define what's "non essential programs"? Because you ask 10 different people, they'll give you 10 different ideas of what is "non essential".

I'm actually all for a tax too help pay for the debt off. Sadly, Republicans nor Tea Partier's will ever push this idea. In fact, I've been pushing too increase sales tax by $.05 for every item meant too pay off the debt. I can't find data on how many items are sold in a day (you think there would be something like that somewhere), but Walmart sales about 5.5 billion boxes of product a year; that's about 15 million boxes of product a day; if you just add $.05 per boxes(don't know how many items are in said boxes so we'll go with boxes), $750,000 a day will be made too pay down the debt, just imagine when you include ALL sales across the US. But as I said, neither Republicans or Tea Partier's will ever accept this... because they think they can fix everything by cutting everything they think is "unnecessary spending", increase military spending (even though the military themselves claim they don't need it) and my absolute favorite, refusal too increase taxes on businesses and people who are racking in massive amounts of money, but paying close too nothing.

Sorry buddy, you, like most Americans, have no idea what you're talking about when it comes too health care or the ACA. The ACA is not nor was it directly responsible for the raise in prices or premiums in current health care coverage by PRIVATE companies. Those companies chose too raise their premiums/prices not too cover premiums of new people (why would they need too increase premiums of current holders when they are PAYING for their own plans?)... because the ACA did not have people signing up until a few days ago in 10/1/2013, but so they can increase their bottom line. As well, with the increase of people covered by health insurance will lead too a decrease in medical prices and health insurance. Why? Because the current excuse for the insane prices in medicine is the claim that people use the emergency room and run too never pay; and the prices in health insurance will drop because the more people who get coverage, the more money is available too cover people, with more people in there, prices will go down.

Also, the ACA had much better coverage in the original bill that was introduced... until Republicans were allowed too re-write certain portions of it, like removing a government option, in order to get them to not filibuster it to death in the Senate. As well, instead of trying too "fine tune" the bill, which is generally what happens after issues arise with the bill, they've done nothing but make extremely pathetic grandstanding trying too repeal it, and any flaws in the bill, they've written off as a reason why it needs too be repealed.

But in the end, this entire situation is due too the hard core right wing Republican partisan politics. Republicans chose too play the game chicken... and they got hit by the car. There was absolutely no logical reason too hold the government hostage because of the ACA.

I respect ya JP, hence why I stopped calling you Ogi.

[Kirkendall 1st MRB]

Snip

I came in here even though I knew I shouldn't have. But I'm restraining myself to countering one logical fallacy. It's incredibly

ironic to attack people for not understanding laws or policies coming into place while simultaneously proposing a federal sales tax like it's an astonishing solution "the other side" would never do. Sales tax is state, not federal. In fact, various counties in certain states can have higher sales tax. But that is controlled by the state. While selective federal 'penalty' taxes exist on some products and services, cigarettes for example, an overreaching sales tax would be such hell to implement and even more hell to justify constitutionally or legally, especially when dealing with current policy makers, Right or Left wing. The positive tax revenue listed is qualified as a "Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise." In that any tax revenue proposed off this plan is inherently flawed. I direct my ire towards this specific part of your discussion because you are enacting this to somehow give legitimacy to your other arguments, and that's silly. When you create an argument build off its own strengths, don't redirect.

Don't get me started on specifics. A flat tax based purely on volume of product sold? Oh lord, he doth not know what he propose. Proposeth? Propose.

[Lafy BAR]

Snip

I came in here even though I knew I shouldn't have. But I'm restraining myself to countering one logical fallacy. It's incredibly

ironic to attack people for not understanding laws or policies coming into place while simultaneously proposing a federal sales tax like it's an astonishing solution "the other side" would never do. Sales tax is state, not federal. In fact, various counties in certain states can have higher sales tax. But that is controlled by the state. While selective federal 'penalty' taxes exist on some products and services, cigarettes for example, an overreaching sales tax would be such hell to implement and even more hell to justify constitutionally or legally, especially when dealing with current policy makers, Right or Left wing. The positive tax revenue listed is qualified as a "Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise." In that any tax revenue proposed off this plan is inherently flawed. I direct my ire towards this specific part of your discussion because you are enacting this to somehow give legitimacy to your other arguments, and that's silly. When you create an argument build off its own strengths, don't redirect.

Don't get me started on specifics. A flat tax based purely on volume of product sold? Oh lord, he doth not know what he propose. Proposeth? Propose.

Bump. Supporting flat taxes isn't far from supporting inflation.

[Perrone]

Snip

I came in here even though I knew I shouldn't have. But I'm restraining myself to countering one logical fallacy. It's incredibly

ironic to attack people for not understanding laws or policies coming into place while simultaneously proposing a federal sales tax like it's an astonishing solution "the other side" would never do. Sales tax is state, not federal. In fact, various counties in certain states can have higher sales tax. But that is controlled by the state. While selective federal 'penalty' taxes exist on some products and services, cigarettes for example, an overreaching sales tax would be such hell to implement and even more hell to justify constitutionally or legally, especially when dealing with current policy makers, Right or Left wing. The positive tax revenue listed is qualified as a "Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise." In that any tax revenue proposed off this plan is inherently flawed. I direct my ire towards this specific part of your discussion because you are enacting this to somehow give legitimacy to your other arguments, and that's silly. When you create an argument build off its own strengths, don't redirect.

Don't get me started on specifics. A flat tax based purely on volume of product sold? Oh lord, he doth not know what he propose. Proposeth? Propose.

Actually, I attacked what he said, not JP himself. As well, I see you don't even understand what I said, so instead of trying too understand it, you place an extremely narrow minded personal view of what you think I said, which is the real logical fallacy here.

No, I'm not "enacting" this too give legitimacy too my other arguments nor is it a categorical syllogism, it is a stand-alone argument about a way too deal with the debt, not the other argument which is about the ACA. I was actually supporting an idea that JP put forth, and then proposed another idea. Which you seem to have completely failed too grasp, but that is probably my fault for not explaining it properly.

What I'm proposing adds a simple $.05 national sales tax too every item bought and sold, on top of the current general sales tax that states have, for the purpose of purely paying off the debt. And while yes, you can argue this is a "flat tax", it is not a flat tax... because flat tax, even in the way you are using the word at the end, refers too income.

Can you point me too any laws that directly state only the states can pass a sale tax? Oh, you can't? Perhaps because there is no law that states only a state can impose a sales tax? Congress is justified in proposing a national sales tax through Article I, Section 8, Clause I of the US Constitution. As long as there is a legitimate reason behind the tax, then it is within the power of Congress to pass said tax. And will it be hell too pass? Of course! Because most Americans believe that we are being taxed the most then any other point in modern US history! Which is wrong, WWI, WWII and post WWII, Americans had too pay far more in taxes then present day Americans.

Kirkdendall, I respect you for what you've done while in this unit. But, you are wrong.

[Kirkendall 1st MRB]

I'm not even going to quote you (not directly though the system, mind, I still am addressing what you said) because I have absolutely no respect for you. You insult other people and claim to not be insulting. This is the most ridiculous and circular reasoning I have seen. You want to go ad hominem? I can go ad hominem. But I won't. Because that's pointless. You claim (paraphrasing) that people "like most Americans" do not understand healthcare or the ACA. First, that's a direct attack on intelligence. Insult. Second, maybe they do understand healthcare and the ACA, but they have a differing view on how it should be handled. While you're at it, people share some Tea Party viewpoints. Which is fine, after all they are their views, and you call the Tea Party "stooges" for no reason other than to be as edgy as MSNBS. Kudos.

You don't understand flat tax the way I used it. You googled flat tax and saw the times where people argued about it with regards to (not too) income. Get that shit outta here. Then, you specified on your "idea" which is even worse now than it was before. A flat tax on each product sold? Great. Be for the people yet you just shut down every mom & pop shop. You're going to charge me the same tax to buy one bottle of soda as I would get to buy a sixpack? Oh, are those separate products now? Have fun with the logistical nightmare you're setting up. You're going to charge me the same tax to buy a pen as you're going to charge me to buy a flat screen TV. I'll wait why you edit and backtrack off of "every item bought and sold." Because all you're doing is allowing Sam's Club, CostCo, or other mass sellers to justify buying and selling larger quantities all at once instead of buying what is needed. Have fun with the enviromentalists on that one. Plus, have fun with educators who now have to purchase a $.07 folder instead of a $.02 folder for their classes. No, educators don't get tax exempt status. You just directly attacked the middle and lower class. The upper class don't give two shits.

While we're at this, let's throw your math into here. Wal-Mart is the largest national retailer. So, sure this money sounds like a whole lot. Well, the national debt is what $16 trillion? Best case scenario is you make maybe $5 billion a year? Argue with it some more but you ain't getting above $10 billion. Great reduction there. Maybe in 100 years we'll see the impact. Sure you can argue this is part of your "master solution" however why this part your logical gold? It's really not.

Good work with the Wikipedia article on logical fallacies by the way. This is child's play off of a phone, and calling people flat wrong is going to get you a world of pain.

[Dawson 1st MRB]

https://bookofbadarguments.com/

[O'Gara 1st MRB]

Sorry O'Gara, but too be as respectful as possible, you are wrong.

The Tea Party is nothing more then bought and paid for stooges of corporations; most notably the Koch Brothers... who literally front rolled and co-opted the movement from the start and still the biggest money behind the movement. (First off Perrone, I love you but I think you need to re-apply another layer of tinfoil to your home because the gamma rays are getting in and making you paranoid again. ) The Tea Party will of course remove anyone, Republican or Democrat, who don't match their extremely partisan political view points and threaten anyone who doesn't tow the line with them... and that's why we are currently in the situation we find ourselves in.

So define what's "non essential programs"? Because you ask 10 different people, they'll give you 10 different ideas of what is "non essential".

I'm actually all for a tax too help pay for the debt off. Sadly, Republicans nor Tea Partier's will ever push this idea. In fact, I've been pushing too increase sales tax by $.05 for every item meant too pay off the debt. I can't find data on how many items are sold in a day (you think there would be something like that somewhere), but Walmart sales about 5.5 billion boxes of product a year; that's about 15 million boxes of product a day; if you just add $.05 per boxes(don't know how many items are in said boxes so we'll go with boxes), $750,000 a day will be made too pay down the debt, just imagine when you include ALL sales across the US. But as I said, neither Republicans or Tea Partier's will ever accept this... because they think they can fix everything by cutting everything they think is "unnecessary spending", increase military spending (even though the military themselves claim they don't need it) and my absolute favorite, refusal too increase taxes on businesses and people who are racking in massive amounts of money, but paying close too nothing.

Sorry buddy, you, like most Americans, have no idea what you're talking about when it comes too health care or the ACA. (The previous statement only shows that you do not understand the ACA and you have no real life experience. The example I gave you is my real life situation. The rise in premium is actual. The ACA was signed into law on March 2010. Before this law my premiums went up by 7-10% per year. Since my premium was set for the year in 1/2010, the first increase cam in 1/2011, second in 2012 and third in 2013. In that short 3 year span my premium has DOUBLED, 100%. That is not because the company is gouging. It is because the companies have adjusted their policies to reflect mandated changes they can offer to all Americans. If this were simply the cost of insurance going up my premium would have gone up only about $90.00 per month and would have taken 10 years to double my original payment per month. It started after the passage of the ACA. Your completely Wrong in your argument. Namely, All private health care companies Immediately adopted the let your kid stay on Daddy's policy until age 26 from age 21. This caused a 20% spike in premium on day one! They did this to get ahead of the new ACA. I know much more than you even think, I work for the 5th largest insurance carrier in the world. My wife works for AETNA and is privy to all of the adjustments the companies have made in order to get compliant with this law, not to mention competitive. In fact, my wife has been on a task force that has dealt with how to make this transition because of her Government Medicare expertise, she reports to the top 5 people who handle Medicare at Aetna. The ACA is not nor was it directly responsible for the raise in prices or premiums in current health care coverage by PRIVATE companies. Again you do not know what you are talking about. Not one single American will be insured under the ACA through the government. As with Medicare, the government will certify all health care companies to provide health plans for those who sign up for the ACA. The reason the companies updated their policies over the last 3 years is because they want the private plans to be priced accordingly to what levels and mandates of the ACA. Please do not tell me that I do not know what I am talking about, when not one point in your rebuttal stands up to the light of day. Those companies chose too raise their premiums/prices not too cover premiums of new people (why would they need too increase premiums of current holders when they are PAYING for their own plans?)... because the ACA did not have people signing up until a few days ago in 10/1/2013, The reason the companies updated their policies over the last 3 years is because they want the private plans to be priced accordingly to what levels and mandates of the ACA (the non ACA plans should be the same level of coverage OR have better levels of coverage, this should be very easy to understand. but so they can increase their bottom line. As well, with the increase of people covered by health insurance will lead too a decrease in medical prices and health insurance. Why? Because the current excuse for the insane prices in medicine is the claim that people use the emergency room and run too never pay; and the prices in health insurance will drop because the more people who get coverage, the more money is available too cover people, with more people in there, prices will go down.

Also, the ACA had much better coverage in the original bill that was introduced... until Republicans were allowed too re-write certain portions of it, like removing a government option, in order to get them to not filibuster it to death in the Senate. Again you do not know what you are saying. Wikipedia the act and you will see that not one Republican Senator voted for the ACA. They all were a Nay vote. The vote was 60 yea and 39 nay. Again not one Republican vote thus your "changes" due to filibuster is not logical. Would there not be Republican yeas if they got concessions? There is this great thing called Google that you can actually fact check yourself. As well, instead of trying too "fine tune" the bill, which is generally what happens after issues arise with the bill, they've done nothing but make extremely pathetic grandstanding trying too repeal it, and any flaws in the bill, they've written off as a reason why it needs too be repealed.

But in the end, this entire situation is due too the hard core right wing Republican partisan politics. Republicans chose too play the game chicken... and they got hit by the car. There was absolutely no logical reason too hold the government hostage because of the ACA.

I respect ya JP, hence why I stopped calling you Ogi. If you start fact checking yourself you can go back to calling me Ogi, lol, no offense taken!

JP

[Perrone]

I'm not even going to quote you (not directly though the system, mind, I still am addressing what you said)

I love this comment, it just serves to show that you won't quote because then you can twist and remove the words I've said too fit into what you want me too say, not what I have said, hence why you won't quote me directly. It's a very common tactic of those with very weak arguments.

because I have absolutely no respect for you.

I honestly don't care if you have any respect for me, I don't come here too gain anyone's respect. Just as how you don't care about what I think.

You insult other people and claim to not be insulting. This is the most ridiculous and circular reasoning I have seen. You want to go ad hominem? I can go ad hominem. But I won't.

I have attacked what other people have said... that is what we call DEBATING! I haven't attacked JP personally, nor have I attacked you at all. You can go ahead and do ad hominem all you want, because that's the ONLY thing you really got.

Because that's pointless. You claim (paraphrasing) that people "like most Americans" do not understand healthcare or the ACA. First, that's a direct attack on intelligence. Insult.

Actually... most Americans don't understand the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. But this isn't due too a lack of intelligence, but because of the massive amount of misinformation that's out there. One of those is the claim that JP used, which was that the ACA was responsible for the hike in his premiums... before the ACA even took full effect. As well, lets face it, most Americans are sorely misinformed about pretty much everything out there. Lets see, what other things did the majority of Americans have been wrong about: The Patriot Act, Iraq War, Guantanamo Bay, torture; I can keep going, but these were all things that the American people supported... and turned out to be WRONG.

So if pointing out when people are wrong, is insulting too you, then what's with the double standard you have going on here right now?

Second, maybe they do understand healthcare and the ACA, but they have a differing view on how it should be handled.

Well, if they did understand it, then they'd know that the ACA is not responsible for any premium hikes when it had yet too take affect. Nor would they claim that it's "government takeover"; or it'll kill mom and pop stores. There's a lot more of misinformation out there, but I'm just giving you examples.

While you're at it, people share some Tea Party viewpoints. Which is fine, after all they are their views, and you call the Tea Party "stooges" for no reason other than to be as edgy as MSNBS. Kudos.

I believe I called them "stooges of corporations"... and that I didn't just call them that, I explained WHY I called them that. Being front rolled by the Koch brothers, which the Tea Party admits too it from day one. Not to mention that the majority of funding that many Tea Party politicians get is from "dark money", aka money from super pac's with known ties too multi-million/billionaires, very few Tea Party politicians actually have raised funds from the average American people. Though this is true as well for many Democrats.

As well as the fact that in every state that the Tea Party has taken over, they've lowered taxes and regulations on corporations, like for instance Wisconsin. And they certainly love getting involved in personal people's lives yet at the same time, complain about "big government". But kudos too you, ignoring what I've said, so you can replace it with what you wanted me too say...

You don't understand flat tax the way I used it. You googled flat tax and saw the times where people argued about it with regards to (not too) income. Get that shit outta here.

Because the flat tax you used as an example, was the flat income tax. Please stop changing your words and argument, people can easily go up and look too see what you've said.

Then, you specified on your "idea" which is even worse now than it was before. A flat tax on each product sold? Great. Be for the people yet you just shut down every mom & pop shop. You're going to charge me the same tax to buy one bottle of soda as I would get to buy a sixpack? Oh, are those separate products now? Have fun with the logistical nightmare you're setting up. You're going to charge me the same tax to buy a pen as you're going to charge me to buy a flat screen TV. I'll wait why you edit and backtrack off of "every item bought and sold." Because all you're doing is allowing Sam's Club, CostCo, or other mass sellers to justify buying and selling larger quantities all at once instead of buying what is needed. Have fun with the enviromentalists on that one. Plus, have fun with educators who now have to purchase a $.07 folder instead of a $.02 folder for their classes. No, educators don't get tax exempt status. You just directly attacked the middle and lower class. The upper class don't give two shits.

This is the only argument that I partially agree with. You are 100% right with your folder and the six-pack example, there's a flaw with this. But, like all flaws, it can be worked on, and improved if possible, or scrapped if all possible avenues looked into fail. But the idea that just because there are flaws in the idea that it should be abandoned, is an extremely illogical view point.

As well, can you actually prove that this would be bad for mom and pop stores? Because I heard the same argument about the ACA... but how many mom and pop stores have more then 50 employee's? So if you'll excuse me, but I don't believe that a 5 cent national sales tax would really hurt the mom and pop stores as much as you're trying to play it off as. Not too mention that Sam's Club, Cost Co, Walmart, and all don't have too have a reason too buy even more, nor would they buy more items, they are a business, they aren't going too buy tons more then they can sell, that would hurt their bottom line. So they aren't going too buy up a ton of items just because of a new tax.

While we're at this, let's throw your math into here. Wal-Mart is the largest national retailer. So, sure this money sounds like a whole lot. Well, the national debt is what $16 trillion? Best case scenario is you make maybe $5 billion a year? Argue with it some more but you ain't getting above $10 billion. Great reduction there. Maybe in 100 years we'll see the impact. Sure you can argue this is part of your "master solution" however why this part your logical gold? It's really not.

Is it a "master solution"? No, it is not, I put an idea out there, which is far more then you've done. As well, that was based on boxes of product moved per year, not per item like I was pushing. Not too mention that there are over 300 million Americans, plus millions of illegal immigrants and hundreds of thousands of foreign tourists visiting the states at any one time. If 300 million Americans buy one item a day, that's $15 million dollars a day. That's $5.25 billion dollars a year... for 300 million people who buy just ONE item a day. Now, reality is, that people buy way more then one item a day, and the impact will be far greater then doing nothing.

Good work with the Wikipedia article on logical fallacies by the way. This is child's play off of a phone, and calling people flat wrong is going to get you a world of pain.

A world of a pain? Hardly, all I've seen so far is you picking and choosing certain words and phrases I've used, and then use them completely out of context. Then when you've been proven wrong, instead of admitting being wrong, you turn around and make a pathetic petty attack. Your argument lacks anything too back it up aside from your personal opinion, and ignoring facts that don't fit into said opinion.

But I will thank you, you have shown me a very major flaw in my idea, and I'll work too find a way too fix that.

[Perrone]

(First off Perrone, I love you but I think you need to re-apply another layer of tinfoil to your home because the gamma rays are getting in and making you paranoid again. )

I love you too bro, but I don't need the tinfoil hat. How do you think the Tea Party was able too afford those fancy charter buses that bussed Tea Partiers from rally too rally within days of becoming official? Or all that free food? Or the money and legal expertise too back them on getting permits in so many states too hold these rallies? The Tea Party already admits too the fact that they receive a TON of money from the Koch brothers! It's not a secret that since the beginning, the group was co-opted by the Koch's. But, if you wish to disagress, then do me a favor and actually post something too disprove what I've said.

(The previous statement only shows that you do not understand the ACA and you have no real life experience. The example I gave you is my real life situation. The rise in premium is actual. The ACA was signed into law on March 2010. Before this law my premiums went up by 7-10% per year. Since my premium was set for the year in 1/2010, the first increase cam in 1/2011, second in 2012 and third in 2013. In that short 3 year span my premium has DOUBLED, 100%. That is not because the company is gouging. It is because the companies have adjusted their policies to reflect mandated changes they can offer to all Americans. If this were simply the cost of insurance going up my premium would have gone up only about $90.00 per month and would have taken 10 years to double my original payment per month. It started after the passage of the ACA. Your completely Wrong in your argument. Namely, All private health care companies Immediately adopted the let your kid stay on Daddy's policy until age 26 from age 21. This caused a 20% spike in premium on day one! They did this to get ahead of the new ACA. I know much more than you even think, I work for the 5th largest insurance carrier in the world. My wife works for AETNA and is privy to all of the adjustments the companies have made in order to get compliant with this law, not to mention competitive. In fact, my wife has been on a task force that has dealt with how to make this transition because of her Government Medicare expertise, she reports to the top 5 people who handle Medicare at Aetna.

Lol, sorry buddy, but once again, you are wrong. Do you really think that just because the kids stay on daddy and mommy's health insurance for another five years, that means the health insurance HAS too increase premiums for everyone? How does that even make sense? Why do they have too charge more for a 26 year old who's still living at home or is off at college, then a 21 year old in the same circumstance?

Not too mention why is it that your premium, which does not have a 26 year old, has too go up too support another person's premium?

No JP, regardless of what you claim, or what your wife supposedly knows, you actually don't know what you're talking about. Because NOTHING you posted, should've upped EVERYONE'S premium. This is clear evidence of PRICE GOUGING. Oh, and if you want to play the whole "my wife is in the know", my aunt is high ranking at Premier Healthcare Alliance, not as big as AETNA, but she has the same access too the information that your wife also has. Very interesting how she told me that Premier, which has also increased their premiums, didn't need too do so. And has even stated that once fully implemented and more people start enrolling, prices will drop.

. Again you do not know what you are talking about. Not one single American will be insured under the ACA through the government. As with Medicare, the government will certify all health care companies to provide health plans for those who sign up for the ACA. The reason the companies updated their policies over the last 3 years is because they want the private plans to be priced accordingly to what levels and mandates of the ACA. Please do not tell me that I do not know what I am talking about, when not one point in your rebuttal stands up to the light of day.

Lol... can you point where I said or even implied that the government will be insuring people? Nope, did not say it, and you still don't know what you're talking about.

While yes, companies have updated their policies, their updated policies DID NOT require upping premiums by 100% in the last three years.

The reason the companies updated their policies over the last 3 years is because they want the private plans to be priced accordingly to what levels and mandates of the ACA (the non ACA plans should be the same level of coverage OR have better levels of coverage, this should be very easy to understand.

Ummm... no, sorry, but the prices didn't need to be increased by 100%, in fact, the Kaiser Foundation, who's the third biggest, has released reports showing that once fully implemented, prices will be going even lower then what the CBO projected. Yet for some reason, the prices are 100% of what they were three years ago, none of that makes any sense at all... unless there's price gouging going on.

Again you do not know what you are saying. Wikipedia the act and you will see that not one Republican Senator voted for the ACA. They all were a Nay vote. The vote was 60 yea and 39 nay. Again not one Republican vote thus your "changes" due to filibuster is not logical. Would there not be Republican yeas if they got concessions? There is this great thing called Google that you can actually fact check yourself.

Lol, you didn't even bother to try to read what I've said... have you? I stated that the Democrats allowed Republicans too re-write certain portions, to ensure that there would not be a filibuster that Republicans were threatening too do before certain parts, such as the public option, were written out, which also won over the two independents and more conservative members of Democrats. I never said anything about changing their votes, I stated it was too stop a Senate filibuster. Please actually READ what is said, and not what you want me to say.

If you start fact checking yourself you can go back to calling me Ogi, lol, no offense taken!

JP

I am the one fact checked and reality checked on this one.

[O'Gara 1st MRB]

Wow,

You have no first hand knowledge and no real Life experience and you somehow think you are the smartest person in the room. Your not. Every counter point you made is basically made up of "i know you are but what am I". At least I give you defined detailed examples. You simply say "no your wrong". I tell you about my direct knowledge of the events at one of the biggest health care companies in the world and you bring up your aunt who happens to work at some small time alliance, who just happens to support your "conspiracy theory" and then actually tells you off the cuff, that they did not need to raise prices, that they are gouging their customers. Wow how bloody convenient. Did she take you into her garage and tell you to get into the car and turn the radio up real loud to make sure the people that are listening in on the microphones could not hear your conversation? Where did you come up with Premier being a healthcare provider, everything on its own website states it is a provider of cost savings TO health care providers and Hospitals. They are supply chain and data gathering. Not one place on their own website shows any healthcare plans or enrollment in individual plans. Your exact words, (Very interesting how she told me that Premier, which has also increased their premiums, didn't need too do so.) What premiums did they raise since they don't provide health care plans, they are a provider of supply chain and data gathering to hospitals and health care plans?

Let me tell you one simple thing. When I share with you my real life situation it is the gods honest truth. I don't bullshit for the sake of hearing myself talk. I don't bullshit for the sake of trying to win an argument, especially since this is an opinion section and not a debate section of the forums. Your Premier Healthcare alliance is like some pee wee football league compared to the pro's. Correction they are not even in the league! P.S. All political candidates raise money and have money on hand to pay to rent buses and provide food. They simply all got together and pooled their resources to get their message out. No big boogie man behind the curtain pulling levers and strings.

Please do not respond to this post because it will be my last back and forth with you on this issue. If I wanted to argue with a brick wall I will just go out front and argue with my front wall.

Peace out.

JP

[Perrone]

Wow,

You have no first hand knowledge and no real Life experience and you somehow think you are the smartest person in the room. Your not.

I am not the smartest, but I've looked into it... and nothing you've posted would be any reason too raise premiums up 100% in three years. As well, life experience has nothing too do with this argument, and you don't have first hand knowledge.

Every counter point you made is basically made up of "i know you are but what am I". At least I give you defined detailed examples. You simply say "no your wrong".

No, you didn't give me "defined detailed examples." You gave me "My wife works for AETNA and she's in the know" and then gave me common talking points that have been repeatedly debunked by common sense, economists, experts and former health insurance employee's who know how these companies operate, and showed that nothing the ACA requires would've forced health insurance companies too raise their premiums.

I tell you about my direct knowledge of the events at one of the biggest health care companies in the world and you bring up your aunt who happens to work at some small time alliance, who just happens to support your "conspiracy theory" and then actually tells you off the cuff, that they did not need to raise prices, that they are gouging their customers. Wow how bloody convenient. Did she take you into her garage and tell you to get into the car and turn the radio up real loud to make sure the people that are listening in on the microphones could not hear your conversation?

Lol, this is projection at it's finest. Your evidence to support your argument is 'my wife works at' "one of the biggest health care companies in the world", and it's very convenient how everything she's told you, matches up too what you believe. Yet when provided with common sense logic that nothing should've upped premiums 100% as well as someone else who's dealing with the same exact issues, instead of disproving, you simply make an ad homenimum too distract from the argument.

As for my aunt's work place, it's one of the biggest in the South East, and while not as big as your wife's, it still has too do the exact same things as her company.

And no, we went out too dinner and she loves too talk about what she does and how things are, she's very proud of her work.

Where did you come up with Premier being a healthcare provider, everything on its own website states it is a provider of cost savings TO health care providers and Hospitals. They are supply chain and data gathering. Not one place on their own website shows any healthcare plans or enrollment in individual plans. Your exact words, (Very interesting how she told me that Premier, which has also increased their premiums, didn't need too do so.) What premiums did they raise since they don't provide health care plans, they are a provider of supply chain and data gathering to hospitals and health care plans?

Premier provides it's employees with it's own health insurance, as in the company created and runs it's own policy, not a policy bought from another company; as well it deals heavily with health insurance. They've upped their policies too match the ACA; and their cooperation with other companies, a number of whom also happen too be insurance companies, has given them access too information relevant to their ACA changes.

Let me tell you one simple thing. When I share with you my real life situation it is the gods honest truth. I don't bullshit for the sake of hearing myself talk. I don't bullshit for the sake of trying to win an argument, especially since this is an opinion section and not a debate section of the forums. Your Premier Healthcare alliance is like some pee wee football league compared to the pro's. Correction they are not even in the league! P.S. All political candidates raise money and have money on hand to pay to rent buses and provide food. They simply all got together and pooled their resources to get their message out. No big boogie man behind the curtain pulling levers and strings.

Please do not respond to this post because it will be my last back and forth with you on this issue. If I wanted to argue with a brick wall I will just go out front and argue with my front wall.

Peace out.

JP

Lol, sorry buddy, but the argument "Mine is bigger thus it is better" is a strawman. They have too abide by the same rules and standards, yet everyone has raised their premiums up at ridiculous rates. I called bullshit on it, and the only thing you've brought in too disprove said bullshit, is the "my wife works there" argument.

We're not talking about political candidates, we're talking about when the Tea Party was founded... before they entered the political ring. They started doing rallies in 2009 shortly after Obama came into office, and a large number of Tea Partiers were being bussed between states too these rallies, having food and lodging's being paid for by the Tea Party... who has again, admitted too receiving huge amounts of money from the Koch brothers. And their politicians have actively sought too reduce taxes on massive corporations, people making a $1 million+ a year, and my favorite, reducing regulations on corporations. Wisconsin is the poster child of what the Tea Party is all about these days. Not going after the banks or bankers, they protect them now.

You're right, this is the opinion section, but I've posted common sense and information I've obtained from someone who is dealing first hand with the ACA... and the only thing you've been capable of is making ad hominem attacks.

I still love ya JP, but you've bullshitted this entire conversation! Especially the part about the Tea Party and your first hand information... which is funny how my first hand information is not as good as yours... simply because yours is bigger then mine.

[Hall]

I think this has gotten out of hand. Both sides have valid points. Topic is closed until further notice. Thank you everyone.