Shut 'em Down!

Current.

Last I checked conservatives are still in office.

Some were.

And yes, we are that stupid! http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-news-greta-van-susteren-out-journalisms-cbs-news-on-florida-womans-junk-insurance/

Yes, some where, not all. Not all policies that are being canceled were bad, just not to the "bronze" level that is mandated by ACA because of choice of the consumer.

But at least I'm glad to see that you admit your stupidity. Now we will need to work on your willingness to learn.

Ah, so at first you wanted me to name federal politicians who does not take donations from companies or allow themselves to be entertained by corporate lobbyists from either party then you limit them to conservatives. Nice little double standard there.

Also, you honestly think that liberals do not do the same, or do you not consider unions as corporate lobbyists either?

Of course I can't name any politician in the entire world who doesn't take donations from corporations, that is impossible, since they all do. But, guess what, some politicians aren't influenced by corporations. I would name a few, but you would say that they are because of your blind hatred of said politicians. Also, they are all freshmen, just recently elected, so there hasn't been enough time to gauge any "influence" if any.

I would love to see you not accept a donation when you are running for office, because I can guarantee that you will not win.

The reason I stated that last sentence is you have made the claim that conservatives are not crony capitalists or not as much as liberals. So I figured you were only interested in conservatives (it would also blow your theory away if you could only name liberal and not conservatives who don't take company money).

I think both parties are so heavily influenced by companies that they don't give two shits for their actual constituants. Just look up the IP lobbying effort and the trade treaties that are being enacted by both parties to curb protect it.

I didn't say they shouldn't accept donations. I asked who had not accepted company donations or company lobbyist "entertainments".

Actually I'm very interested in who you could name but won't. Although if you say you could name someone but won't because of my blind hatred (based on one line you took offense from) then I call ***.

However, I asked an impossible task because yes, every federal politician accepts corporate donations and lobbying entertainments from companies. My point was that both parties are dirty and you claiming one is more pure than the other is, again, ***.

Also, your last sentence. A person really dedicated could survive on independent donations alone. Instead of expensive TV ads they could use donated time and the internet. There are hundreds of options to run an actual grass roots campaign that doesn't involve corporate money. It does involve a hell of a lot of work though.

Ted Cruz.

Took donations from corporations, of course.

Influenced by said donations, hard to tell, but so far not showing signs of it.

Also, I didn't say that conservatives are pure, just more understanding about capitalism and not just crony capitalism. Liberals? They rely on crony capitalism to further their agenda.

BTW, why are you asking a question both you and I know the answer to anyway?

What, and accepting donations from corporations take that work away from the candidate?

Winning an election involves a lot more than you think >.>

Ted Cruz is influenced by Jim DeMint and the Heritage Foundation. So much so that during the government shut down the Heritage Foundation would say every Senate resolution was not conservative enough and Ted Cruz would turn around and say "It's not conservative enough".

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/the-long-arm-and-hidden-hand-of-jim-demint-20131001

I've helped on elections.

When you have more money you can hire more people which spreads the work around or buy more "marketing concepts". When you have to rely on only independent donations you have to get more creative and innovative. You know, that self-reliance thing versus throwing money at a problem thing.

Campaign managers and their assistants do the majority of work and planning. The politician is doing deals behind closed doors, with companies, unions, non-profit organizations, other politicans, etc. This seperation of day-to-day operations also lets the politician blame someone if there is backlash on a particular part of the strategy.

I'll have to look his donations, speeches and voting record up before I comment on this.


This is what you said:


Conservatives and liberals both, equally, deal in crony capitalism. Liberals have their pet businesses (green energy, wall st., RIAA, agriculture, etc) and conservatives have theirs (Defense contractors, wall st., RIAA, agriculture, etc). Both parties are understanding about capitalism. And they both want to protect certain industries, there is even some overlap between both parties.

Because what you said made me think that you don't want your party to be held accountable for doing the same thing as the democrates, to the same extent.

I actually changed my tune about the implementation of the individual mandate as soon as it became apparent that its problems were much deeper than server traffic on a website. Facts changed, my position changed, and I stated that. The only thing worse in politics than never changing your mind, is changing your mind.

Ya, I was wrong about the infrastructure being completed, obviously it wasn't, but nobody knew that at the time, and now that we do, I supported delaying it "at least as long as the time it took before it was fully functional".

It was actually a Royal We.

Anyway, the current talking point is that the poor insurance companies can no longer provide coverage for certain people because of Buttbamacare. I linked an isolated case, but it was one that was touted in the media (the liberal media!) as the story of a helpless woman being stripped of her care. What these reports failed to mention is that the care was worthless and she didn't even know what the plan actually covered.

So tying this together (since everything needs to be explicitly stated around here), it is not outside the realm of possibilities that many of these now cancelled plans were absolutely worthless in terms of care and insurance companies are now angered and "embarrassed" about having to provide real coverage for their customers.

Since the requirements have been around for awhile, why haven't adjustments been made until now? If the minimum requirements weren't met, there has been plenty of time to slowly bring it up to code. I personally think they were all counting on the ACA being overturned and when it wasn't decided to just drop some policies instead.

Or instead.
But obviously mainstream media source so feel free to ignore it

Obviously some plans are being pushed out because at a fixed rate they become less profitable every year, but the way that it's presented is definitely suspect.

The grandfather clauses in most legislation like this is mostly fluff, though, as inflation and rising costs generally make any grandfathered entity exceed it's grandfathering almost as soon as the law goes into effect. It did take longer than expected to get ACA into effect, but they knew a lot of policies would lose their grandfather status very early into it's life and weren't honest about it.

However, I would like to see some actual proof that any large number of the policies being cancelled that are attributed to ACA are actually being cancelled due to ACA. My recent experience with the dishonesty of insurance providers has me VERY skeptical of those cancellations being forced specifically because they become unfavorable if kept at the "rent controlled" levels that ACA requires under it's grandfather clause.

I am not going to say that I trust the insurance companies either, however, the administration should have been on top of a lot of the many directions that Insurance companies were going to run to. Could they plan for them all? No, but they should be controlling it way better than they currently are. Grandfathering policy cancellations is a prime example.

As of right now though, the law allows for this change and the administration knew this, so therefore they lied about people keeping their plans and doctors. So I think we both agree.

Unofficial numbers supposedly from the war table notes of the administration that FOX ( I know) released today. It says almost 250 people signed up for the ACA in 3 days from launch! I would almost want to see better proof, but given the fact that the administration won't give us numbers even after 30 days pretty much confirms it is bombing..... They would be braggin' their *** of if it was more successful than this.

And I didn't see all the conversation, whoever said that even I couldn't have seen the website failing was right, WHO THE FU*C MESSES A WEBSITE UP, GIVEN AN UNLIMITED BUDGET, IN THE YEAR 2013!

I am, so far correct about this not working, rates going up and just being a total disaster all around.... And no I am not a Republican, or a Dem. or a Conservative. I am a simple man with a little common sense on my shoulder that realized from the get go these changes were not enough to be true reform. (To be fair I really was hoping that I was wrong about this and this was going to be the next best thing since the wheel")

To relate it back to the shut down, this whole debacle is not ready for prime time. It is obvious from the website, from the way employer mandate was delayed, and from the failure of the grandfathering of the policies. While I did change my mind on how the republicans handled the shut down, it doesn't change the fact that they gave Obama a one year hiatus to get his ducks in a row. He choose to be Mr. Billy OBAMA Bad ***" (Reid too is a dumbass) and put the tea party in their place. That succeeded, but the hate for the GOP is so great people avert their eyes at just how much a dumbass the President is.

He would have looked better "compromising" with the Republicans giving them the 1 year wait on the individual mandate and fixing his administration and the blunder referred to as Obooboocare.

True, the plans may have been worthless, but I am sure we can find plans that were not and conclude the opposite of the scenario you proposed. What It comes down to is that the administration knew or since no one can say for certain about anything "should have known" that the planned grandfathered policies were doomed from the get. They still turned around and lied about the issues.

What is wrong with you?

First of all your assuming the percentage of policies cancelled due to legal requirements of the ACA is higher than that of those that they're just cancelling on their own... It's definitely possible but again you guys are ingoring most everything I'm saying... I'm not even arguing that it isn't... I'm saying that they're cancelling other policies and telling people its because of ACA even though it isn't... then they offer them a very similar policy with jacked up premiums when they really didn't have to...

That's the other thing Nasui always seems to forget... its not that they are no longer allowed to even purchase a policy its just that it changed... the same insurer is going to reinroll you in a new general policy if you don't stop them...

idk why you want to focus on the part of an argument that I'm not even arguing against... how many times do I have to repeat myself in that I know some policies are being cancelled... and yes it was said that everyone would be able to keep their policy... I also disaprove of this action... we get it... ugh...

looks for clarfication..
takes time to fire shots at liberals...
defends conservatives by saying that everyone accepts these donations so bah I can't refute anything...
throws hail mary and says that some can't be gauged yet how influenced they are!
makes argument that you must accept donations to win!
ignores argument altogether and accuses other side of blind hatred when he shows his all the time as well...

So, you are saying that the millions of letters going out to policyholders saying that their insurance is being dropped has nothing to do with ACA, or most of them are being dropped because of ACA?

I'm saying that some are being cancelled due to the legal requirements of the ACA and some are being cancelled under the guise of being forced to do so by the ACA...

You're having an argument with me that I'm not even making though... I'm not denying that It was said that everyone would be able to keep their policy and I personally think shitty policy or not they should be able to keep it... we allow people to pay a fine to have no coverage why not let people have shitty coverage or whatever coverage they had before... My whole argument is that companies have been dropping some people to get them off the books and onto a more expensive policy or possibly off their coverage and onto the ACA exchange...

Insurance companies are not the victims in this whole mess... look to the individuals getting pounded either by their insurance companies or the government...

besides you guys make arguments based mostly on assumptions of how you think this will work or off a paragraph in a document thousands of pages long then paste that onto your limited understanding of the system and talk about it like its 5 years from now and the dust has started to settle on how this has affected everyone...

It's hard to tell really... according to media reports that we can no longer believe because of either their shoddy reporting capabilities or associations with criminal corporations... the shut down is over.

I haven't personally noticed any difference from inside of my tin foil fortress of paranoia.

Reports are hazy...but so far in the story Nausi's bus load of terminally ill crippled children was nearly trapped in a sink hole caused by a dinosaur when a guy jumped off his ladder with a grenade and blew up a hydroelectric plant...but instead keanu reeves drove it into a creek somewhere in kansas .. the incident was presumably created by crony capitalists for reasons unknown but presumed sinister. ted cruz immediately seized control of the senate floor and read green eggs and ham for a hundred and forty seven hours for no apparent reason while garbage trucks circled the capital in an attempt to create an earthquake large enough to destroy washington dc.

For reasons that remain unclear....We're still looking for a politician that doesn't take contributions from corporations, proof of life on mars, trying to locate the old woman that got her insurance cancelled that she bought in a gumball machine, and discover why obama ruined halloween by not wearing a costume while committing the impeachable offense of giving out nutritious snacks instead of candy.

there are also several reports that nausi ate the inside of a glowstick and has broken the barrier into the sixth dimension

Oh, ok. This is how I heard it on TV.

You do always know how to put things back in perspective for me Nik...

How did we ever live with P&R before Nik?!?

I really needed that hearty laugh today.

Just for you king!

*Pretends to be Kingnobody so he can get a clue*

Sooo.... you're saying insurance companies are greedy and are taking advantage of the customers not knowing how the grandfather clause works in the ACA and are intentionally lying to them and scapegoating the ACA because it's an easy con?? Perposterous!!! Corporations are saints that provide services to helpless people without taking advantage of them. I work for a corporation and they even pay me, so I should know. They would never take advantage of a persons ignorance for profit.. NEVER. I WILL KILL YOU IF WE EVER MEET IN PERSON FOR SUCH SLANDER..AND THEN FLAVIN I'LL HAVE MY WAY WITH YOU!!.

*Stops pretending to be Kingnobody*


Oh.. hai guys how was your Halloweens?

So you don't think there is even a remote possibility that politicians that support single payer health care, but know that American's would have rejected that outright, might want to begin gradually moving people into Obamacare insurance "options" and a government subsidy for healthcare by systematically wiping out choice in private insurance market?

Nahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

I think there is a remote possibility for a great deal of things... Santa might actually bring me a present this year... Hilary Clinton might rise up and lead the women of the united states in a war on men! and that the conservative politicians will get ther colony on mars!

/sigh

And what's more likely? What I said or those stupid things you mentioned?

I KNOW HE SAID IT BUT ITS OUT OF CONTEXT BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH

there I made the pathetic argument you will likely hide behind for you