The Post Punt Gun Economy

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Jccarlton
Posts: 1747
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 6:14 pm
Location: Southern Ct

The Post Punt Gun Economy

Postby Jccarlton » Mon Nov 11, 2013 7:10 pm

Still in the gutter:
http://pjmedia.com/blog/2014-the-collap ... amaconomy/
They had to get the healthcare bill passed. Never mind what it was going to do. The stimulus that was a payout to unions and cronies, because the important thing was to get the money out there and people spending. The incredible waste of time and money. Is this what you Obama supporters really wanted? This is the party of compassion?

Schneibster
Posts: 1805
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:21 am
Location: Monterey, CA, USA

Re: The Post Punt Gun Economy

Postby Schneibster » Tue Nov 12, 2013 7:55 am

You teatraitors sabotaged it.

I don't know what you're whining for.

You just want everyone to blame someone other than you.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.

JLawson
Posts: 422
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:31 pm
Location: Georgia
Contact:

Re: The Post Punt Gun Economy

Postby JLawson » Tue Nov 12, 2013 1:18 pm

Jccarlton wrote:Still in the gutter:
http://pjmedia.com/blog/2014-the-collap ... amaconomy/
They had to get the healthcare bill passed. Never mind what it was going to do. The stimulus that was a payout to unions and cronies, because the important thing was to get the money out there and people spending. The incredible waste of time and money. Is this what you Obama supporters really wanted? This is the party of compassion?

The more I'm seeing, the less I think this was ever supposed to produce a workable product.

The ACA passed - on a strict party-line vote. It wasn't supposed to pass - its failure could be used as a club to beat the opposition. "WE are the compassionate ones! Look at the marvelous, free, wonderful health care WE would have given you!" It would have been GLORIOUS, and usable for decades.

Then they didn't seriously start work on it until after Obama won the 2012 election. The showing in 2010 probably left a good bit of doubt that a Democrat would win in '12, which - if the Republicans repealed the ACA (either for not having any substantial progress or sheer overspending) would again have been a magnificent club to bash the opposition.

But Obama won - and all of a sudden that wonderful weapon (a health care act that was unworkable and sure to be repealed when anyone with a brain realized what it was going to do) turned into a "Oh, hell - you mean we've got to come up with something that actually WORKS? And in less than a YEAR?"

Yeah, no possibility of failure at all with that. And no need to 'sabotage' it - the people writing it did quite well enough so that anything else was superfluous.
When opinion and reality conflict - guess which one is going to win in the long run.

JLawson
Posts: 422
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:31 pm
Location: Georgia
Contact:

Re: The Post Punt Gun Economy

Postby JLawson » Tue Nov 12, 2013 1:40 pm

Then there's the problems with the 'navigators'. Don't you just love the idea of giving personal information like your SSAN and birth date to people who haven't had background checks? Who, moreover, can't be required to have background checks because it may be discriminatory?

Sebelius: Obamacare Navigators Don't Need Criminal Background Checks

Oh, sure - I really want the person who handles my info to have a background check because I'm rrrrrracccccccccist. Not because I've got an objection to identity theft and dislike a half-dozen accounts opened under my name (which happened when my spouse's wallet was stolen at the office - along with five other people's things. It was in a desk drawer, but that didn't stop someone from getting at it, and it took three weeks to get that mess settled out.)

Crazy world any more, isn't it? Where the procedures that worked to help curb theft (such as background checks and bonding) are seen as unacceptable?
When opinion and reality conflict - guess which one is going to win in the long run.

Scupperer
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 3:31 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Contact:

Re: The Post Punt Gun Economy

Postby Scupperer » Tue Nov 12, 2013 2:22 pm

Looks like the Navigator system is just another outlet for the scattered Acorn remnants.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/3 ... -john-fund
Perrin Ehlinger

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Re: The Post Punt Gun Economy

Postby MSimon » Tue Nov 12, 2013 2:39 pm

Schneibster wrote:You teatraitors sabotaged it.

I don't know what you're whining for.

You just want everyone to blame someone other than you.


I take full blame. Thank you so much for the compliment. All I had to do was to think bad thoughts about it and it was destroyed. Don't MAKE me think bad thoughts about you.

===========

If a guy in a tinfoil hat can destroy Obamacare what chance does the rest of the command and control economy have?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Re: The Post Punt Gun Economy

Postby MSimon » Tue Nov 12, 2013 2:42 pm

It’s not a system that any engineer would recognize as being a system. The number of pages of regulations alone presently exceeds 20,000. There are way too many business rules to implement, test, and operate. With the business rules still being written, how could anyone have already programmed them into the system?

http://classicalvalues.com/2013/11/missing-information-technology/
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

paperburn1
Posts: 2449
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: The Post Punt Gun Economy

Postby paperburn1 » Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 pm

I believe the main failure was the dems expected people to do the right thing, stand in line and sign up. They also expected the insurance company and businesses do the right thing as well and absorb the cost as well.
The problem was they all did the most profitable thing, "What can we do to make the most profit from the situation?" was foremost on the company's minds. The people thought what can I do to save those dollars until I have to spend them.
This is what happens when idealist focuses on good, and companys/people focus on what the bottom line will be.
This has turned into a classic example of why government should stay out of business unless absolutely necessary.

Wait until next year when the people find out those are not subsidies for insurance and really are tax credits that you have to pay back out of your tax refund.
It doesn’t take Warren Buffet’s financial savvy to figure out that young, healthy uninsured Americans, who are largely uninsured because they cant afford health insurance in the first place, are not going to be flocking to buy these policies for the privilege of having a health insurance card in their wallets that requires another $6,000 out-of-pocket before their expenses are fully covered and includes co-pays of 40% of all initial costs until that $6,000 is reached. What most of them will do is what they have been doing – live without insurance and go to an emergency room if they need medical care where the law says they have to be treated whether they have insurance or not.
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

JLawson
Posts: 422
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:31 pm
Location: Georgia
Contact:

Re: The Post Punt Gun Economy

Postby JLawson » Tue Nov 12, 2013 4:29 pm

paperburn1 wrote:I believe the main failure was the dems expected people to do the right thing, stand in line and sign up. They also expected the insurance company and businesses do the right thing as well and absorb the cost as well.
The problem was they all did the most profitable thing, "What can we do to make the most profit from the situation?" was foremost on the company's minds. The people thought what can I do to save those dollars until I have to spend them.

In other words - they behaved in their own self-interest. Not much of a surprise there, really - it's only in the fantasies of the left that all the people march together like ants in lockstep to do 'good things' as defined by the left.

The real trick to make the 'good things' applicable and appealing to the self-interest of the individuals. Take cell phones, for example - if they were 'government mandated' as far as what they could do, does anyone else think we wouldn't have near the capability in the things we've got now when the free market and individual preferences are guiding innovation in the field?

This is what happens when idealist focuses on good, and companys/people focus on what the bottom line will be.

This has turned into a classic example of why government should stay out of business unless absolutely necessary.

Wait until next year when the people find out those are not subsidies for insurance and really are tax credits that you have to pay back out of your tax refund.

It's going to be a hell of a mess. It doesn't really matter how well-meaning the Democrats were who pushed for this thing - it's going to sour a lot of people on the Democratic Party for a long time to come.

It doesn’t take Warren Buffet’s financial savvy to figure out that young, healthy uninsured Americans, who are largely uninsured because they cant afford health insurance in the first place, are not going to be flocking to buy these policies for the privilege of having a health insurance card in their wallets that requires another $6,000 out-of-pocket before their expenses are fully covered and includes co-pays of 40% of all initial costs until that $6,000 is reached. What most of them will do is what they have been doing – live without insurance and go to an emergency room if they need medical care where the law says they have to be treated whether they have insurance or not.

The numbers never made any real sense - but any attempt to say so was rrrrrrrraaaaaaaacissssstttt and hateful and meant you wanted the poor to DIE, you greedy bastards!

As it is, we could have provided gold-plated insurance plans for the poor for a lot less than this mess is going to cost us all.
When opinion and reality conflict - guess which one is going to win in the long run.


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests