Fact checking is a must today......

  
Via:  flynavy1  •  5 months ago  •  338 comments

Fact checking is a must today......
"Don't urinate on me and tell me it's raining.....!"

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Fact checking is as important as ever in today's fast paced news onslaught.  Those that tell you it isn't are either liars working at trying to deceive you towards their agenda, or lying to themselves out of self-imposed ignorance.  In some cases I fear it may be a bit of both.  

I'm all for freedom of speech.  Say what you want, anytime you want, but standby, because if I feel like wasting my time, I'm going to shove your lies back up your ass. All politicians run the gamut from stretching the truth to outright fabrications.  What I can't understand is why seemingly good people are so willing to take up and beat the drum of their lies as well. I guess it just might come down to the difference in being raise in a household where data and facts were supported over beliefs and feelings. 

I've attached a link to an article that is as relevant as it was two years ago prior to the 2016 election.       

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
FLYNAVY1
1  seeder  FLYNAVY1    5 months ago

https://www.theodysseyonline.com/dont-believe-everything-hear-read

In science and applied science (engineering) we constantly seek out facts and truths.  Those that willingly peddle in non-truths and non-facts hold mankind back from what can truly achieve for the benefit of all. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1    5 months ago

You have to deal with facts in science and engineering. If you deal with "alternative" facts your bridge is going to come crashing down

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
1.1.1  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1    5 months ago

Gravity...... She is thou a heartless bitch.

 
 
 
epistte
1.1.2  epistte  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.1.1    5 months ago

Murphy always works overtime.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
1.1.3  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  epistte @1.1.2    5 months ago

Hell.... Murphy is an optimist!

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.1.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.1.1    5 months ago

LOL! And since you were a flyer, gravity and you were more than mere acquaintances

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
1.1.5  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1.4    5 months ago

Kick the tire...light the fire!

 
 
 
WallyW
1.2  WallyW  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1    5 months ago

Yeah, although it didn't apply to me, I didn't believe it for a second when Obama "promised" that you could keep your plan, you could keep your doctor, and save $2500 a year on health expenses. I didn't believe Clinton, when he said he did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. All politicians lie, exaggerate, stretch the truth, and fully engage in hyperbole.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
1.2.1  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  WallyW @1.2    5 months ago

Odd that those are the only two instances that come to mind for you Wally, but whatever....

I have a long record of voting on both sides of the aisle at every level of government.  What continue to drive my choices is first: my oath of enlistment that obliges me to uphold and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  The second was me taking to heart Article 1 of the POW Code of Conduct.  It is easy to be a truth seeking moderate when you put country over party at every opportunity.  Call it objectivity.

Regards....

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.2.2  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  WallyW @1.2    5 months ago
All politicians lie, exaggerate, stretch the truth, and fully engage in hyperbole.

But, if you are truthful you must admit that Trump has taken it to a whole new level.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
1.2.3  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.2.2    5 months ago

......And that's where the rubber currently meets the road!

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.2.4  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.2.1    5 months ago
Odd that those are the only two instances that come to mind for you Wally, but whatever....

Out of 16 years (Clinton then Obama's two terms) they find two and have to reach back 25 years for one of them, but that's their defense of Donald Trump who has been caught in thousands of provably false statements and he's only been President for two years.

Anyone being honest can see there simply is no comparison with any former President, not even Nixon had as many demonstrably false statements as Trump afflicts us with weekly.

Trump doesn't tell the facts as they are, he tells them as he wants them to be. That is what Kelly Anne meant when she said "alternative facts". It's the world according to Trump. And for his sycophant followers who handed him the keys to the city, they're either too stupid or too bitter to care about the consequences of having such a dishonest liar running the country.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.5  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  WallyW @1.2    5 months ago
I didn't believe it for a second when Obama "promised" that you could keep your plan, you could keep your doctor, and save $2500 a year on health expenses.

Of course, Obama said this before the PPACA was fully implemented and actually believed the plan would allow that but letting the plan be dominated by the corporate wealth care cartel pre-ordained that this would not be the case.  The worst you can blame him for is naïveté.  It also explains why the piecemeal approach to get to universal health access (i.e., Medicare For All) is never going to work.  

On the second point of saving on expenses, I can attest that the plan saved our family much more than $2500 a year.  I hit Medicare before my wife and for a one-year period after I retired  our income was low enough to make her eligible for the PPACA.  The monthly premiums on that exchange plan were $124/mo.  Last year saw the beginning of the RMD for my pension plan so our income made her ineligible for the exchange and we had to go to an individual market plan with premiums of $823/mo.  This year it's $936/mo. I let you do the math. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.6  Texan1211  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.2.5    5 months ago

If your premiums were ever $124 a month in the last 10 years, then you were subsidized by taxpayers.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.7  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.6    5 months ago
If your premiums were ever $124 a month in the last 10 years, then you were subsidized by taxpayers.

Brilliant, Tex.  I told you it was an exchange plan and you come back to tell me it was an exchange plan (or did you not know what that meant?).  BTW,  we've always been taxpayers even when we used the exchange for one year so we've subsidized that, too.  If you have a company health plan, you're premiums were being subsidized by everyone else in that plan.  BTW, my health plan now, Medicare, is subsidized by the taxpayers including me.  Unless you plan on not taking Medicare when you're eligible don't try that shit with me.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.8  Texan1211  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.2.7    5 months ago

Not all people who buy on the exchange are subsidized.

Or did you think they were?

LMAO!

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.9  Texan1211  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.2.7    5 months ago
Brilliant, Tex.

At least smart enough to know what the exchanges are, how they work, and to know that not everyone is subsidized.

Thanks!

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.10  Texan1211  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.2.5    5 months ago

Here's a little primer for you about the exchanges:

https://www.npr.org/2013/10/11/230916150/faq-all-about-health...

Enjoy.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.11  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.10    5 months ago

That link must have been news to you but I've been all-too-well aware of how the health care system works in this country for a long time. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.12  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.9    5 months ago
At least smart enough to know what the exchanges are, how they work, and to know that not everyone is subsidized.

Wow, you really don't know the difference between the exchanges of the PPACA and the individual market.  And, apparently you still didn't get if from the link you sent to me -- did you even read it or, worse, read it and still not get it? 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.13  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.8    5 months ago
Not all people who buy on the exchange are subsidized.

Yes, they are.  You cannot buy on the exchanges unless you're eligible for the subsidies: 

https://www.financialsamurai.com/subsidy-amounts-by-income-limits-for-the-affordable-care-act-obamacare/

And this is in the first paragraph of the link you sent me (did you not even bother to read it?):

1. The exchanges will also help people find out if they are eligible forfederal subsidies to help cover the cost of coverage or if they are eligible for Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance program for the poor.

Since you have obviously never actually gone to the exchange to get health insurance, let me walk you through it (you could actually go there and put in the data it requires to see for yourself, too).  Among the series of questions is how much income individual or family makes.  If it's above any of the levels show in that link above you are notified that you are not eligible for any of the exchange plans.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.15  Texan1211  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.2.13    5 months ago

You are quite simply, wrong.

Did you even bother to read your very own link????????

Why would it list the amount of a plan that is NOT subsidized if everyone is subsidized? Or does THAT make sense to you?

Why don't you read THIS before making any more false claims?

https://www.healthcare.gov/apply-and-enroll/income-too-high-for...

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.16  Texan1211  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.2.13    5 months ago
Among the series of questions is how much income individual or family makes. If it's above any of the levels show in that link above you are notified that you are not eligible for any of the exchange plans.

Jeeze.

What that means is it will check to see IF you are eligible for a subsidy. Not that you can't buy insurance on the exchange if you don't qualify for one.

SMMFH!!!!

LMFAO!

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.17  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.15    5 months ago

You are really a tough educational challenge, Tex.  First, your link is broken but it doesn't really matter.  This is as plain as it gets so let's see how you're going to pretend it doesn't blow your case apart:

The exchange is the best option for people who qualify for premium subsidies and cost-sharing subsidies, as subsidies are only available for plans purchased in the exchanges.
Source: https://www.healthinsurance.org/obamacare-enrollment-guide/off-exchange-plans/

There are so many ways you could be confused but I suspect it's because the same plans that are offered on the exchanges (with subsidies) are available (without subsidies) on the individual market.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.18  Texan1211  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.2.17    5 months ago

Jeeze, are you actually SERIOUS????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
WTF?

From your very own source, AGAIN!

Read it again.

Then again, then again.

it DOES NOT SAY THAT EVERYONE WHO BUYS ON THE EXCHANGE IS SUBSIDIZED.

It CLEARLY states (to most, anyways) that ONLY plans on the exchange are eligible for subsidies. Do you really not know or can tell the freaking difference??????????????????????????????????????????????????

as subsidies are only available for plans purchased in the exchanges.

SMMFH

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.19  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.16    5 months ago
What that means is it will check to see IF you are eligible for a subsidy. Not that you can't buy insurance on the exchange if you don't qualify for one.

Jeezis indeed.  As soon as it's determined that one doesn't qualify for the subsidies one is informed that one is not eligible for an exchange plan.  I've  gone through this fucking process multiple times in the past few years and you're trying to use links (that don't actually support your point or are "busted") as your only evidence.  I challenge you to actually go to your state's PPACA website for this and plug in the information using an income level above the cut-off for your tax situation.  

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.20  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.18    5 months ago
It CLEARLY states (to most, anyways) that ONLY plans on the exchange are eligible for subsidies. Do you really not know or can tell the freaking difference??????????????????????????????????????????????????

JFC, you're now debating yourself!!!!  Fucking hilarious. I can hardly wait for your next self-defeating argument.jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.2.21  XDm9mm  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.2.13    5 months ago
Yes, they are.  You cannot buy on the exchanges unless you're eligible for the subsidies: 

You are oh so wrong....  as usual, so nothing changes.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.22  Texan1211  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.2.19    5 months ago

I have, I didn't qualify for a subsidy but I could purchase a plan, just like EVERYONE can.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.23  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2.21    5 months ago
You are oh so wrong....  as usual, so nothing changes.

I'd hardly expect you to know anything about this and sure enough you never disappoint. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.24  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.22    5 months ago
I have, I didn't qualify for a subsidy but I could purchase a plan, just like EVERYONE can.

Yes, on the goddam individual market like I said above not through the exchange.  One must, repeat absolutely MUST (since you like bold shouting) qualify for subsidies to buy a plan in the exchange.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.25  Texan1211  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.2.20    5 months ago

If Your Income is Too High For Health Coverage Tax Credits ...
https://www.healthcare.gov/apply-and-enroll/income-too-high-for...

If you're not eligible for lower costs on a health plan because your income is too high, you can still buy health coverage through the Health Insurance Marketplace. To apply, create an account or log in to your existing account.

Please let the federal government know that they set their whole exchange up wrong, and that you are right, despite what the law says, okay?

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.26  Texan1211  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.2.24    5 months ago

Your obtuseness is wearing thin.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.2.27  XDm9mm  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.2.23    5 months ago
I'd hardly expect you to know anything about this and sure enough you never disappoint.

Really?   We were forced to get coverage on 'the exchange' when I ceased working and I took medicare.  She still needed coverage until she to turned 65.  And no, we did NOT get any subsidy, and every company we contacted referred us back to the Obamashitty exchanges.

Oh, I might add that she LOST THE PLAN SHE LIKED, and she LOST THE DOCTOR SHE LIKED, and we sure as the sun comes up in the morning didn't "SAVE $2500 a year".  In point of fact it COST US MORE.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.28  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.25    5 months ago

Oh, now you're actually repeating my argument back to me and pretending it's what you've been saying. What a transparently pathetic and dishonest way to pretend you were "right."  You are nothing if not consistent, Tex. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.29  Texan1211  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.2.28    5 months ago

I figured you wouldn't actually read or understand what I posted.

Seems like most folk can see this part:

If you're not eligible for lower costs on a health plan because your income is too high, you can still buy health coverage through the Health Insurance Marketplace. To apply, create an account or log in to your existing account.

Please, no more responses until you get up to speed on what you are attempting to talk about.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.30  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2.27    5 months ago
 We were forced to get coverage on 'the exchange' when I ceased working and I took medicare.  She still needed coverage until she to turned 65.  And no, we did NOT get any subsidy, and every company we contacted referred us back to the Obamashitty exchanges. Oh, I might add that she LOST THE PLAN SHE LIKED, and she LOST THE DOCTOR SHE LIKED, and we sure as the sun comes up in the morning didn't "SAVE $2500 a year".  In point of fact it COST US MORE.

Don't blame the exchanges for your obvious incompetence.  Your situation sounds exactly like mine and we had no problem getting in getting the subsidy for that one year.  And, in our case, it was having to leave the exchange and go to the private individual market that forced a change of doctors.  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.2.31  Jack_TX  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.29    5 months ago
If you're not eligible for lower costs on a health plan because your income is too high, you can still buy health coverage through the Health Insurance Marketplace. To apply, create an account or log in to your existing account.

This is 100% true.  

Although now that open enrollment is over, one would need a special event.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.2.32  Jack_TX  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.2.24    5 months ago
Yes, on the goddam individual market like I said above not through the exchange.

*facepalm*

The exchange is a subset of the individual market.  All exchange policies are individual market policies.  One can choose to buy a policy without using the exchange, but every policy purchased through an exchange is part of the "individual market".

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.34  Texan1211  replied to  Jack_TX @1.2.32    5 months ago

I think the chances of him getting it are zero.

Many Obamacare cheerleaders never bothered to understand the PPACA or even how the exchanges work.

Can't say I am surprised.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.35  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Jack_TX @1.2.32    5 months ago
The exchange is a subset of the individual market. 

O, ferfucksakses.  Sure, I guess you could describe it as such but it's s subset reserved only for people who will qualify for the subsidies.  And you're just repeating to me what I've been saying just as your fellow Texan did when she decided to flip the script and pretend that was what she was saying all along.  It was not.  

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.36  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.29    5 months ago
Please, no more responses until you get up to speed on what you are attempting to talk about.

And please no more pretending that you didn't flip your script when you realized what a blunder you had made. You aint foolin' nobody but the fools, Tex. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.37  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.26    5 months ago
Your obtuseness is wearing thin.

I'll never yield to ignorance and lies. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.38  Texan1211  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.2.36    5 months ago

You'll still be as wrong as you are now.

No one flipped anything, just trying to educate you on the exchanges. 

I have never net a single person who thought you can only buy on the exchange if you get a subsidy.

probably because everyone else gets how it works.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.2.39  Jack_TX  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.2.35    5 months ago
Sure, I guess you could describe it as such but it's s subset reserved only for people who will qualify for the subsidies.

No it isn't.   You can buy a policy through the exchange whether you qualify for subsidy or not.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.2.40  Jack_TX  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.38    5 months ago
I have never net a single person who thought you can only buy on the exchange if you get a subsidy.

It's quite common, actually.  Especially for those consumed with identity politics.

probably because everyone else gets how it works.

Nah.  Not even close.  You'd be lucky to find 1 American in 1000 who can explain the ACA.  

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.41  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.38    5 months ago
No one flipped anything, just trying to educate you on the exchanges. 

Let's review your comments, shall we?  Here's your 1.2.8:

Not all people who buy on the exchange are subsidized.

And here's you screaming in 1.2.17:

as subsidies are only available for plans purchased in the exchanges.

And you claim I'm the one who can't understand the PPACA? jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.42  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Jack_TX @1.2.40    5 months ago
You'd be lucky to find 1 American in 1000 who can explain the ACA.  

And neither you nor  Tex is  one of them.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.43  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.38    5 months ago
I have never net a single person who thought you can only buy on the exchange if you get a subsidy.

Let's get something cleared up. You earlier seemed to be using the term "exchange" to refer to the PPACA health plans*--as I do.  Now you seem to be using it to refer to the individual marketplace.   Is that still your "position?"

i.e., calling the exchange (i.e., PPACA)  a "subset" of the individual market.  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.2.44  Jack_TX  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.2.42    5 months ago
And neither you nor  Tex is  one of them.

And yet we've been right on everything so far.....

Hmmmm......

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.45  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Jack_TX @1.2.44    5 months ago
And yet we've been right on everything so far.....

In your imaginary universe, of course.  You both have been arguing both sides of the question about who and who doesn't get subsidies, often switching the terms "exchange" and "marketplace" for both or neither as being offering them.  We know muddying up this kind of "discussion" is one of the right's favorite tactics in order for you to declare "victory" (in your own minds) but it ainta gonna fly with me.  If you hope I'm going to abandon the field and let you pretend that you got another think comin'. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.2.46  Jack_TX  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.2.45    5 months ago

"Marketplace" is the name for the federal system used in many states, accessed at Healthcare.gov.  

"Exchange" is a synonymous term, also used by many states that run their own system.  

In either case, individual a can buy policies through these systems regardless of income.  If a person's income is too high, or if they have access to employer based coverage or some other disqualifying situation,, they can still buy a policy, they just don't get any subsidy.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.47  Texan1211  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.2.43    5 months ago

I just can't help you understand. I have tried, but a closed mind hears nothing.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.48  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.47    5 months ago
I just can't help you understand. I have tried, but a closed mind hears nothing.

That's just just beyond pathetic, even for you,Tex.  

 
 
 
Don Overton
1.2.49  Don Overton  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.47    5 months ago

Just like others have tried to help you understand it seems

 
 
 
Don Overton
1.2.50  Don Overton  replied to  Jack_TX @1.2.44    5 months ago

Yet all I've seen is you two offer nothing but opinion  which provides no truth

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.51  Texan1211  replied to  Don Overton @1.2.49    5 months ago
Just like others have tried to help you understand it seems

PLEASE tell me you don't believe that ONLY people who get subsidies are allowed to buy insurance through the exchanges!

Please tell me you are smarter than that!

I might even believe it!

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.52  Texan1211  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.2.48    5 months ago

I realize the truth is uncomfortable to hear sometimes, but you'll be better for it.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.53  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Jack_TX @1.2.46    5 months ago
In either case, individual a can buy policies through these systems regardless of income. 

Still playing dodgeball with yourself, I see.  I never claimed that it was not possible to buy a policy in one or the other of the two "systems" (now you've introduced yet another descriptor--i.e., muddification).  So, that comment is a two-fer:  Straw Man + Confusation .   It's your well-establish m.o., Jack.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.2.54  Jack_TX  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.2.53    5 months ago

You said:

One must, repeat absolutely MUST (since you like bold shouting) qualify for subsidies to buy a plan in the exchange.

Which is incorrect.   You can buy a policy on the exchange without a subsidy.  This fact seems to confuse you, which seems odd as it is not very complicated.

You are now simply attacking anyone and everyone who points out that you were incorrect....which is your very well established m.o.

You much prefer fighting to learning, which quite probably explains your "confusation".  

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.55  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.51    4 months ago
PLEASE tell me you don't believe that ONLY people who get subsidies are allowed to buy insurance through the exchanges!

When you explain how you came up with these  two mutually exclusive comments (since I noticed you tried to ignore them since  I put them up):

You, 1.2.8:

Not all people who buy on the exchange are subsidized.

You (screaming), 1.2.17:

as subsidies are only available for plans purchased in the exchanges.

Tex, I don't know why you like to make it so easy to take you down but I sure do appreciate it. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.56  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.52    4 months ago
I realize the truth is uncomfortable to hear sometimes, but you'll be better for it.

It's a good thing for you there is no god, Tex.  Here's what the options are  for people who do not qualify for the subsidies in the PPACA (this is for you, too, Jack):

Don't qualify for savings? Three other ways to buy a health plan

  • Directly from an insurance company.You can contact any health insurance company and see plans available in your area. Many have websites that let you compare all plans they sell.
  • Through an insurance agent or broker.Generally, agents work for a single health insurance company, while brokers sell plans from several. Both can help you compare plans and enroll. You don't pay more by using an agent or broker. They're generally paid by the insurance company whose plans they sell. They may sell only certain companies' plans. Search for health insurance agents and brokers near you using ourFind Local Help tool.
  • From an online health insurance seller.These services offer health plans from a number of insurance companies. They let you compare prices and features and then enroll with the insurance company. They may not offer all plans available in your area.

https://www.healthcare.gov/apply-and-enroll/income-too-high-for-tax-credit/

See what's not on that list:  any option to actually buy the policy on the exchange.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.57  Texan1211  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.2.56    4 months ago

Perhaps you should begin to actually read your own links and sources.

I quote from YOUR link:

f you're not eligible for lower costs on a health plan because your income is too high, you can still buy health coverage through the Health Insurance Marketplace.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.58  Texan1211  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.2.55    4 months ago

Look, those are two completely different things.

You are ONLY allowed a subsidy if you purchase a plan through the exchange. Not EVERYONE qualifies for subsidies. You may purchase a plan through the exchange whether you have a subsidy or not.

I can explain it for you, but I damn sure can't understand it for ya!

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.59  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.57    4 months ago
If you're not eligible for lower costs on a health plan because your income is too high, you can still buy health coverage through the Health Insurance Marketplace.

That's Jack's false statement in 1.2.28 above not mine.  Either you think you can get away with any goddam dishonest move or you just can't even keep track of this thread.  That's not surprising since you've been trying to squirm your way out of the hole you (and Jack) dug yourselves for this whole discussion.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.60  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.58    4 months ago
You may purchase a plan through the exchange whether you have a subsidy or not. I can explain it for you, but I damn sure can't understand it for ya!

You've got chutzpah, that's for sure.  Your Dear Scumbag Leader would be so proud of you. Or should I say "ya." 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.2.61  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.34    4 months ago

So glad I have never had to bother with the exchanges. Ah the blessings of Tri Care for Life and Medicare.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.62  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.58    4 months ago
I can explain it for you, but I damn sure can't understand it for ya!

I'd love to see you try to "texplain" it -- that would be good for laughs at least.  It appears that you have never even understood the fact the the "marketplace" includes both the subsidized plans found at healthcare.gov and the private individual market.  Let's try to help you one more time.  This is a big article, Tex, so I'm staking a lot on you  being willing to even look at it, much less understand it, but here goes:

https://www.healthinsurance.org/glossary/health-insurance-exchange/

Here, again, is the key point (from the link):

Under the ACA, all individual and small-group plans must conform to the same new regulations, regardless of whether they’re sold through the exchange or off-exchange.* All individual and small-group plans effective January 2014 or later must cover ten essential health benefits including emergency services, hospitalization, preventive services and more; these requirements apply both on and off the exchange. But consumers are only eligible to receive premium subsidies and cost-sharing reductions if they purchase their coverage through the exchange.

* i.e., in the private "marketplace," not through healthcare.gov which is what's being referred to in the sentence in bold above.  

There.  I don't think I can keep spoon feeding you more information, especially since I'm certain you'll find a some way to keep rejecting the facts no matter how many times they're presented to you.  

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.63  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2.61    4 months ago
Ah the blessings of Tri Care for Life and Medicare.

So you're a big fan of socialized medicine...for you.  

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.2.64  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.2.63    4 months ago

No, when I raised my right and took a oath to "Uphold and defend The Constitution of The United States...". I took that oath very seriously then as I do today. As part of my 20 years is service to my country, I was promised free health care for life. But it is in no way the "socialized medicine" as you put it. I earned it! I love my country. I shed my blood for it in two wars on two continents. So please do not attempt to denigrate my service or  condescend to tell me otherwise!

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.65  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2.64    4 months ago
As part of my 20 years is service to my country, I was promised free health care for life.

Right....socialized medicine for military retirees.  Don't get me wrong because I'm all for it.  But the promise you were given as a member of the military is the same promise Medicare gives to everyone who reaches the age where it's impossible for the vast majority of people in this country to pay for health insurance.  The only difference between those two programs is that you "paid" for it with you commitment to the military.  Medicare is literally paid for by a tax on those who will receive it.  Both are government administered programs and, as such, by the standards you on the right create, are socialism.  You and your fellow rightwingers who are receiving one or both (do you get both Medicare and CHAMPUS?) need to explain why you're all for "socialized medicine" for yourselves but not the entire country. 

 
 
 
evilgenius
1.2.66  evilgenius  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.2.62    4 months ago

From https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/health-insurance-marketplace-glossary/

The Health Insurance Marketplace (also known as the “Marketplace” or “exchange”) provides health plan shopping and enrollment services through websites, call centers, and in-person help

I do IT service for 3 health insurance broker offices every day (for the past 13 years). In MN and WI you can get insurance through the state exchanges even if you do not qualify for a subsidy. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.2.67  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.2.65    4 months ago

Your info is somewhat out of date. CHAMPUS as a entity has not existed for decades. It has since been replaced by TriCare. And contrary to popular belief, it is not free. Military retirees do in fact pay premiums. I pay $250.00 per quarter. So you can kiss your idea that it is "socialized medicine" out the window. In answer to your question as to whether I get both? Yes I do. After I retired from the military, I was eventually unable to work due to service connected disabilities. I already had my Tri Care and when I was approved for Medicare later. Medicare is my primary while Tri Care is my secondary. I hope this clarifies things.

 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.68  Texan1211  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.2.62    4 months ago

Like I said, I explained it to you.

I can't understand it for you.

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.2.69  Split Personality  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2.67    4 months ago

When I had TriCare, the software for medical records was still referred to as CHAMPUS.  Whether that's correct or just "old habits die hard", I don't know, lol.

Now I just use Medicare.  Why pay twice?

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.70  Texan1211  replied to  evilgenius @1.2.66    4 months ago
From https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/health-insurance-marketplace-glossary/
The Health Insurance Marketplace (also known as the “Marketplace” or “exchange”) provides health plan shopping and enrollment services through websites, call centers, and in-person help
I do IT service for 3 health insurance broker offices every day (for the past 13 years). In MN and WI you can get insurance through the state exchanges even if you do not qualify for a subsidy.

Of course you can buy a plan on the exchange without a subsidy. He is confusing the fact that you must purchase on the exchange to receive a subsidy with only people receiving subsidies can buy on the exchange. No point in explaining it, either. Been there, done that!

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.71  Texan1211  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.2.59    4 months ago

Oh FFS!

Did you even read the post?????

If you're not eligible for lower costs on a health plan because your income is too high, you can still buy health coverage through the Health Insurance Marketplace.

That is a direct quote from YOUR freaking source!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.2.72  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.70    4 months ago
with only people receiving subsidies can buy on the exchange.

Not exactly...at least as I read this.

If you're not eligible for lower costs on a health plan because your income is too high, you can still buy health coverage through the Health Insurance Marketplace. To apply, create an account or log in to your existing account.

You can also get insurance other ways — through a private insurance company, an online insurance seller, or an agent or broker.

First: Do a quick check to see if you may save

Don't qualify for savings? Three other ways to buy a health plan

  • Directly from an insurance company. You can contact any health insurance company and see plans available in your area. Many have websites that let you compare all plans they sell.
  • Through an insurance agent or broker. Generally, agents work for a single health insurance company, while brokers sell plans from several. Both can help you compare plans and enroll. You don't pay more by using an agent or broker. They're generally paid by the insurance company whose plans they sell. They may sell only certain companies' plans. Search for health insurance agents and brokers near you using our Find Local Help tool.
  • From an online health insurance seller. These services offer health plans from a number of insurance companies. They let you compare prices and features and then enroll with the insurance company. They may not offer all plans available in your area.
https://www.healthcare.gov/apply-and-enroll/income-too-high-for-tax-credit/
 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.73  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @1.2.72    4 months ago
with only people receiving subsidies can buy on the exchange.

I know that people who don't receive subsidies can buy on the exchange.

People who want subsidies must buy on the exchange.

Here is another line from the same source:

If you're not eligible for lower costs on a health plan because your income is too high, you can still buy health coverage through the Health Insurance Marketplace.
 
 
 
Split Personality
1.2.74  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.73    4 months ago

Sorry, Ithink it was just a poorly constructed sentence that confused at least a few people.

The "Health Insurance Marketplace" is how www.healthcare.gov refers to itself

When you create a log in and account... etc.

Moving on......

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.75  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @1.2.74    4 months ago

Atheist is claiming that ONLY people who get subsidies can purchase on the exchange.

I proved him wrong, but he won't admit it. Do you think that only subsidized people can buy on the exchange?

Sorry my sentence construction is not up to your standards.

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.2.76  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.75    4 months ago

Well. I'll admit that's what's wrong with jumping into a conversation without going back three fucking days to see how many members

are arguing about semantics and twisting shit.

I will go on the record as saying that you & Jack appear to have been correct from the beginning @ the ACA & healthcare market

and that atheist is definitely wrong when he/she tries to assert/imply  that you are a woman!

I apologize.

You Jack_tx and evilgenious are correct.

Atheist appears to be arguing for arguments sake.

Have a good night

and good golly

I hope the predictions for 75 degrees tomorrow are correct.

I have relatives from Australia visiting and that 25 degree night last Friday killed my whole  damned garden..........

Gotta plant more pansies, lol

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.2.77  Jack_TX  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.75    4 months ago
I proved him wrong, but he won't admit it.

You surely didn't expect him to admit it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.78  Texan1211  replied to  Jack_TX @1.2.77    4 months ago

That ship has sailed around the world by now!

 
 
 
Freewill
1.2.79  Freewill  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.78    4 months ago
That ship has sailed around the world by now!

For fuck sakes!  I read that whole damn exchange and wish to anoint you and Jack_TX with the gold star of perpetual patience.  What in the Sam hell is wrong with some people these days?  How can you be so mired in ideology that you can't see and understand what is clearly written right there on the website.   Unbelievable!  This is definitely why we need fact checkers for almost everything these days because hard line ideology blinds some folks from the obvious and they will continue to spread lies and misinformation even when presented with clear unequivocal facts. 

By the way, the exchange here in California is called Covered California.  My guess is that it is called that because it covers many Californians who don't qualify for the subsidies in some very expensive shit.  You can definitely buy a plan from the exchange even if you don't qualify for subsidies but you would have to be filthy rich or stupid, or both.  HMO's are well out of reach for anyone except those who get significant subsidies.  Certainly anyone making $100k or more generally does not qualify for subsidies. 

I had to switch to a PPO years ago with our qualified company plan and even that costs me more than my mortgage every month for a family of 4 (was 5 before my oldest aged out) and the company pays for my share of that coverage so the mortgage size payment is for the rest of the family.  I looked up a very similar plan on the exchange for the last several years and the cost is 1.5 to 2 times what I already pay.  I don't understand who could afford that or why they wouldn't look for a lesser evil.  That is how they are able to fund the people who get subsidies in this State.  Every year we pay more for less coverage.  Double digit percentage increases in premiums most years since 2010. 

Fun stuff!

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.80  Texan1211  replied to  Freewill @1.2.79    4 months ago

Not to mention the ridiculously high copays and OOP expenses!

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.81  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2.67    4 months ago
So you can kiss your idea that it is "socialized medicine" out the window. In answer to your question as to whether I get both? Yes I do.

Paying $1,000 a year in premiums means the government (with taxpayer money) is paying the rest, i.e., socialized medicine whether you admit it or not.  And, with Medicare it means  you're actually in two socialized medicine plans.  Were you paying FICA while in the military? 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.82  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.75    4 months ago
I proved him wrong, but he won't admit it. Do you think that only subsidized people can buy on the exchange?

We never expected you'd actually accept the facts after they'd been repeatedly presented to you.  But you can continue with your fantasy.  

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.83  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.68    4 months ago
I can't understand it for you.

That sentence is just two-thirds correct. 

 
 
 
Freewill
1.2.84  Freewill  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.80    4 months ago
Not to mention the ridiculously high copays and OOP expenses!

Indeed!  For most of the year you truly wonder if you even have any insurance at all.  Especially if there are minor surgeries involved.

 
 
 
Freewill
1.2.85  Freewill  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.2.82    4 months ago

Atheist,

At this point I have to assume that you are just fucking with the Texans right?  Honestly man if you still don't understand that one can buy a policy on the exchange without having qualified for a subsidy, then I have to question your powers of reading and comprehension.   

Perhaps this article can settle it for you:

Out of the 12.2 million people who selected an Obamacare plan during open enrollment for 2017 on one of the government exchanges, 10.1 million, or 83 percent, qualified for an advanced premium tax credit that lowered their monthly premium.

Which means what?  Perhaps that 17% of those who bought on the exchanges did NOT qualify for such subsidies? Maybe this paragraph makes it clearer:

But unsubsidized customers are bearing the full brunt of price hikes. More than 2 million people who did not qualify for subsidies made plan selections on government exchanges this year. And millions more bought plans outside of the exchanges. Only customers of plans sold on the exchanges can get subsidies.

I have emphasized the important part for your reading pleasure.  If it ain't clear by now, then may God have mercy on your soul.  Oh.....sorry....  (-:

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.86  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.71    4 months ago
you can still buy health coverage through the Health Insurance Marketplace.

On the private side of that broad umbrella term (as you've been told many times even by your buddy, Jack).  It cannot be purchased through the healthcare.gov website unless one qualifies for the subsidies and discounts -- as you've been shown multiple times now.  I get it.  Your ideology demands you stick to a false statement regardless of how many times it is shown to be so. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.87  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Freewill @1.2.85    4 months ago
I have emphasized the important part for your reading pleasure.  If it ain't clear by now, then may God have mercy on your soul.  Oh.....sorry....  (-:

All I can do with shit talk  like that is just keep referring the shittalkers to the facts as shown in 1.2.70, 1.2.58 and 1.2.52 above.  

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.88  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  evilgenius @1.2.66    4 months ago

Wow, that is the most fucking worthless effort so far from you people. It's a list of terms and doesn't even begin to address the matter we've been discussing.  How do you keep your job with such sloppy work like that? 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.89  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Freewill @1.2.85    4 months ago
Oh.....sorry....  (-:

That's the only fact in that whole pile of garbage that came above it. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.90  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.80    4 months ago
Not to mention the ridiculously high copays and OOP expenses!

You do realize this is how the free market private health care system (you know, the one you people think is so marvelous and must not be touched) works, right?

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.91  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Freewill @1.2.85    4 months ago
At this point I have to assume that you are just fucking with the Texans right? 

Actually, it's more like she's doing that to herself.  It's not my fault she seems to be determined to keep it up. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.92  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.2.83    4 months ago
That sentence is just two-thirds correct. 

Which I should have pointed out is 2/3 improvement over the usual.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.93  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.70    4 months ago
Of course you can buy a plan on the exchange without a subsidy.

And, again here are the three ways that can be done (as has been posted three times now, at least):

  • Directly from an insurance company.You can contact any health insurance company and see plans available in your area. Many have websites that let you compare all plans they sell.
  • Through an insurance agent or broker.Generally, agents work for a single health insurance company, while brokers sell plans from several. Both can help you compare plans and enroll. You don't pay more by using an agent or broker. They're generally paid by the insurance company whose plans they sell. They may sell only certain companies' plans. Search for health insurance agents and brokers near you using our Find Local Help tool.
  • From an online health insurance seller.These services offer health plans from a number of insurance companies. They let you compare prices and features and then enroll with the insurance company. They may not offer all plans available in your area.

What is so impossible in those straightforward descriptions for you to understand?  If you still can't or refuse to get it, try using that help link (I'm afraid that will require you to actually go to the Marketplace website). 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.94  Texan1211  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.2.91    4 months ago

I know this must be hard for you. I am a man. Been male my entire life. But, hey, why would I reasonably expect you to get that right when you can't understand your own links and sources?

That would make me freaking crazy to expect it from you!

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.95  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.94    4 months ago
I know this must be hard for you. I am a man.

Why would that be hard for me?  Do you often have to tell people that you're a man?  Do you have your own doubts?   As far as understanding links, though, you and your fellow fact deniers would be the last people anyone who wanted the truth would go to for direction on that.  

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.96  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.47    4 months ago
I just can't help you understand.

Which is no surprise since you are beyond confused with your "subsets" and "systems"--terms you made up and which even you can't seem to keep straight. 

 
 
 
Freewill
1.2.97  Freewill  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.2.93    4 months ago
And, again here are the three ways that can be done (as has been posted three times now, at least)

And AGAIN - Every one of those options you described are simply examples of "off-exchange" options which of course are options if one does not qualify for the subsidies on the exchanges, but that does NOT preclude one from choosing a policy on the exchange if one doesn't qualify for a subsidy.  The option to buy a policy on the exchange even though they did not qualify for a subsidy was made by over 2 million people last year, or about 17% of the policies sold through the exchanges per the article to which I linked above - HERE is the link again.  Please read it!   It is true that the only way one CAN get a subsidy is through the exchanges, but that does NOT mean you can't still get a plan through the exchange if you don't qualify for a subsidy.  Why is this so painfully difficult for you to grasp?

Another option not mentioned in your post above is for people to get insurance through an off-exchange program offered through their employer.  This is still the way that most people get health insurance today.  In many cases, like mine, this method can be quite expensive, but an equivalent plan on the exchanges with someone of my income level is 1.5 to 2 times more expensive than what I pay now.  That is why many who can't qualify for subsidies on the exchanges look to other off-exchange options like you described above.  But the fact remains that millions still do get policies on the exchange even though they don't get subsidies.

Also, in California, if your employer offers an "affordable" off-exchange plan that the employee accepts for his/her personal coverage, that employee's family (including kids up to age 26) cannot get a separate subsidized policy on the exchange if that employee's plan offers (but not necessarily pays for) coverage for family members.

If you meet the income qualifications, you may still be ineligible for a subsidy. That would be the case if:
  • You're eligible for an affordable, minimum value plan from an employer (yours or your spouse's). For 2019, "affordable" means that the coverage costs no more than 9.86 percent of your household income. Note that affordability of employer-sponsored plans is calculated based only on the employee's costs, regardless of what it costs to add a spouse and dependents. But the spouse and dependents are not eligible for a subsidy in the exchange if the employee's coverage is considered affordable for the employee and is offered to the family members. This is called the family glitch.
 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.98  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Freewill @1.2.97    4 months ago
Every one of those options you described are simply examples of "off-exchange" options which of course are options if one does not qualify for the subsidies on the exchanges, but that does NOT preclude one from choosing a policy on the exchange if one doesn't qualify for a subsidy. 

So, now you're telling me what I've been saying from the beginning.  Texan tried that gambit, too, when she realized what a massive turd of wrongheaded wrong she laid.  Jeezis, you people really think we can't see right through you.  Maybe you can send that comment directly to Texan and Jack,TX and maybe they'll finally come around but no doubt they'll also claim that's what they meant all along.  And. That's. Bullshit. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.99  Texan1211  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.2.96    4 months ago

Impasse.

 
 
 
Freewill
1.2.100  Freewill  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.2.98    4 months ago
So, now you're telling me what I've been saying from the beginning.

[Deleted]  Ok lets play your game shall we?  In 1.2.19 you said:

I challenge you to actually go to your state's PPACA website for this and plug in the information using an income level above the cut-off for your tax situation. 

Excellent!  Let's roll.

Let's start here at Healthcare.gov to determine if I qualify for subsidies on my state exchange:  https://www.healthcare.gov/lower-costs/

I select 4 people in my household, and California for my State and up pops a button that says I need to "Visit Your State Marketplace".  Awesome! Let's hit that shall we?

Nice!  It sends me directly to the Covered California ( https://www.coveredca.com/ )where I can hit a nice little green button that says, "See if You Qualify for Financial Help" .  That sends me HERE: https://www.coveredca.com/see-if-you-qualify-for-financial-help/ where I encounter a table that asks if my income falls between $0-$100,400 for a household of 4.  I hit NO as my income is higher than that.

Low and behold that pops up a screen that says,

Awesome!  That tells me they can rape my wallet even if I don't qualify for financial help!  Seems that your theory is incorrect.  Shall we hit the big blue "Continue" button?  That sends me to a screen that shows me the "benefits" of the plans on the exchange and beckons me to "See Plan Levels".  Oooooo. This is a pretty page showing me the Platinum, Gold, Silver and Bronze Plans I can choose from even though my income is too high to qualify for subsidies.
I'm going to happily strike the big "Get a Quote" button because I'm am simply tingling with anticipation.  Ah HA! Up pops a page once again asking me question about my income ( https://apply.coveredca.com/lw-shopandcompare/ ) .  I will proceed with vigor to select Coverage Year 2019, my zip code 95624, my income roughly $200k, and 4 peoples in my household.  Up pop 4 more boxes asking for ages of my household 55, 57, 25. 21. I'm almost there!  Getting a health insurance chubby at this point.  Shall I hit the "See my Results" button before I absolutely shit myself?
OMG!!!!!  I have "potential eligibility" for "Negotiated Prices", but no subsidies! https://apply.coveredca.com/lw-shopandcompare/screening-results .  I will now proceed to "Preview Plans".  It asks me about my preferred docs, I put that in, hit "Next".  It asks me about my frequency of using the doctor and prescriptions.  Let's say Medium USE which appears to be the default.  And I'll be damned!  24 Plans all available for me at exorbitant prices, and/or shit for coverage, without subsidy and most of which do NOT include my doctor in their network!
Not sure if all the links will work because you have to step through it as an individual, but I did what you asked, and if I wanted them, I'd have 24 very expensive plans THROUGH THE EXCHANGE to choose from, un-subsidized, none of which are better for me than my off-exchange employer plan.  I could be riding high on a non-subsidized exchange plan right now, but since I'd like my family to eat, go to college and enjoy a roof over their head, I am not.  But the fact remains I COULD, and that my friend is a successful counter to your challenge.
 
 
 
Freewill
1.2.101  Freewill  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.2.98    4 months ago

Atheist,

So while at Covered California addressing your challenge, I dialed up the Support Chat Help and asked the question point blank.  Here is that exchange:

chatAgent.png Kyle: Hi, my name is Kyle. How may I help you? 
chatEndUserMessage.png Me: Hi Kyle
chatAgent.png Kyle: Hello, how may I help you today?
chatEndUserMessage.png Me: A very general question. Assuming it was still open enrollment time, could I still purchase a plan through the Covered California Exchange even if my income was say $200k which means I don't qualify for subsidy?
chatAgent.png Kyle: Yes.
chatEndUserMessage.png Me: Thank you!

Are we done yet?

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
1.2.102  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Freewill @1.2.101    4 months ago

Bravo.  Now everyone knows what that proves, and what I've known all along. 

 
 
 
Freewill
1.2.103  Freewill  replied to  Freewill @1.2.100    4 months ago

sandy-2021492

Sorry for the part of my post 1.2.100 that you deleted and rightly so.  I should not have let my frustration with someone who uses phrases like "... the most fucking worthless effort so far from you people" (see 1.2.88)  throughout the discussion get to me to the point where I throw it back.  I know better than that and I apologize.

Thank you for leaving the rest of my post, however, as I think it is key to resolving this discussion.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.2.104  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Freewill @1.2.103    4 months ago

Freewill,

No worries. We all lose it sometimes. Even me jrSmiley_68_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.105  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Freewill @1.2.100    4 months ago
I'd have 24 very expensive plans THROUGH THE EXCHANGE to choose from, un-subsidized, none of which are better for me than my off-exchange employer plan.  I could be riding high on a non-subsidized exchange plan right now, but since I'd like my family to eat, go to college and enjoy a roof over their head, I am not.  But the fact remains I COULD, and that my friend is a successful counter to your challenge.

So, you just got up to but not past the point where you actually selected the plan(s) (I believe you can select up to 3 of them) you wanted to pursue.  If you had gone that next step, you would have been given the three options*  that I've listed several times for actually buying the policy which YOU CANNOT DO ON THE HEALTHCARE.GOV WEBSITE (all-caps needed just to be sure you got the message) where you started that process.  All that work you did just to back me up.  I sure appreciate the help. 

* just to remind you and Tex and Jack just what those options are.  Some day you they just might come in handy:

  • Directly from an insurance company.You can contact any health insurance company and see plans available in your area. Many have websites that let you compare all plans they sell.
  • Through an insurance agent or broker.Generally, agents work for a single health insurance company, while brokers sell plans from several. Both can help you compare plans and enroll. You don't pay more by using an agent or broker. They're generally paid by the insurance company whose plans they sell. They may sell only certain companies' plans. Search for health insurance agents and brokers near you using our Find Local Help tool.
  • From an online health insurance seller.These services offer health plans from a number of insurance companies. They let you compare prices and features and then enroll with the insurance company. They may not offer all plans available in your area.
 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.106  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Freewill @1.2.101    4 months ago
Are we done yet?

Alas, for you, no.  See my response to your experience on healthcare.gov (at 1.2.100) immediately above. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.107  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Freewill @1.2.101    4 months ago

Oh, well, then.  How could I possibly challenge that kind of "proof?"   The unprovable "conversation with Kyle."  jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.108  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.2.102    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.2.109  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.2.81    4 months ago

Yes, I paid FICA  just like everybody else. Just curious, do you have something in particular against the military?

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.110  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.2.107    4 months ago
The unprovable "conversation with Kyle." 

But let's just suspend disbelief for a bit and allow there might have been such a conversation.  In the same way you stopped short in your long-winded description your website experience, you also didn't bother to ask "Kyle" the next crucial question to Kyle should have been "How do I do that?"  Instead, you just assumed you got the final answer and were so eager to run back here with your little conversation (still jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gifabout that, btw) that it didn't even occur to you that Kyle might have had more specific information about how to do that.  In fact, one of the reasons that your conversations smells is that I'm sure the answer to your question should have been more detailed than just the "yes" that you recorded. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.111  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2.109    4 months ago
Just curious, do you have something in particular against the military?

Oh, how pathetic a tack that is after I clearly stated right at the start that  I was all for you getting the military retirees lifetime health care benefits.  I do like to point out the monumental hypocrisy of the ones like you who enjoy lifetime government-run health insurance plans and don't want the whole country to have the same freedom of worry.  

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.112  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.2.107    4 months ago

It took me one minute to find out what you wasted probably a good 30" (including your "conversation with Kyle," again jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif) and got the full answer that you didn't.  Here's the start of it:

How many people are in your household?

Include yourself, your spouse if married, and anyone you'll claim as a tax dependent in 2019 — even if they don't need coverage.

1

What state do you live in?

California

What is your estimated income for 2019?

>$49,960

Next steps

If your income is above $49,960:

Then I clicked "can get insurance in other ways" and got to a page with this message (note highlighted parts):

So what's a body to do if a body doesn't qualify for the subsidies?  Why, they even tell a body clearly how that can be accomplished:  

Don't qualify for savings? Three other ways to buy a health plan

  • Directly from an insurance company. You can contact any health insurance company and see plans available in your area. Many have websites that let you compare all plans they sell.
  • Through an insurance agent or broker. Generally, agents work for a single health insurance company, while brokers sell plans from several. Both can help you compare plans and enroll. You don't pay more by using an agent or broker. They're generally paid by the insurance company whose plans they sell. They may sell only certain companies' plans. Search for health insurance agents and brokers near you using our Find Local Help tool.
  • From an online health insurance seller. These services offer health plans from a number of insurance companies. They let you compare prices and features and then enroll with the insurance company. They may not offer all plans available in your area

This is at least the fourth time I've put it up here and no doubt will  be ignored for the fourth time by people who just cannot admit to their ignorance. But, if I have to keep putting up until it gets through the thick skulls or this article goes away, I'll do it. 

 
 
 
Freewill
1.2.113  Freewill  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.2.112    4 months ago
You won't qualify to save on an insurance plan. You can buy one through the Marketplace at full price, or you can get insurance other ways.

For the love of....

Try to absorb the part in red bold letters from your OWN link.  Are we clear enough yet?  You selected the OR path all the while ignoring what the rest of us have been trying to tell you all along.  

Allow me to assist.  Please see the glossary on Covered California's website HERE

Look up Marketplace

marketplace See "health insurance marketplace."

Will do

health insurance marketplaces

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, these are resources where individuals, families and small businesses can learn about their health coverage options; compare health insurance plans based on costs, benefits and other important features; choose a plan; and enroll in coverage. Marketplaces also provide information on programs that help people with low to moderate income and resources pay for coverage. This includes ways to save on the monthly premiums and out-of-pocket costs of coverage available through the marketplaces, and information about other programs, including Medicaid (Medi-Cal in California) and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Marketplaces encourage competition among private health plans and are accessible through websites, call centers and in-person assistance. In some states, such as California, the marketplace is run by the state. In others, it is run by the federal government.

health insurance plan

See "health insurance."

Health insurance plans sold through Covered California, the state's marketplace for the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, provide essential health benefits, follow established limits on cost-sharing (such as for deductibles, copayments and out-of-pocket maximum amounts) and meet other requirements of the federal health care law.

In case you are still confused, the "Marketplace" or "Exchange" are one in the same.

exchange See "health insurance marketplace."

Covered California IS this State's PPACA compliant "Marketplace" or "Exchange".

This coupled with the FACT that over 2 million are enrolled in plans on the marketplace without having qualified for subsidies (as I've already proved in 1.2.85, and you have ignored) really should cement this in any reasonable mind.

By the way, glad you had a good laugh about the chat I had with Kyle at CC and copied and pasted verbatim aside from changing my name to "me".  Let's do this, why don't you go back to use the Help Chat at CC and ask the same question?  His answer was simple because it is such a simple concept to grasp.

Now PLEASE, are we fricken done yet?  

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.2.114  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.2.111    4 months ago

Let them earn it like I did..

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.2.115  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.2.111    4 months ago

I was wrong to have made the statement regarding having a beef with the military. I misinterpreted one of your statements. Please accept my apology.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
1.2.116  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Freewill @1.2.113    4 months ago

One can certainly hope so.  I’m just glad that I have coverage through my employer.  

 
 
 
Freewill
1.2.117  Freewill  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1.2.116    4 months ago
I’m just glad that I have coverage through my employer.

Yep!  Me too.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.118  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2.114    4 months ago
Let them earn it like I did..

So only YOU actually deserved ....no one else does.  Thanks for demonstrating that massive hypocrisy for me.  That's one thing about some in the military or retired from it that I can't stomach---that they think they're better than everyone else that they count more than any other citizen.  Luckily there are relatively few like you but their massive entitlement complex is no credit to their service.  Even in my short stint in the military I dealt with your type and I was disgusted with them then and still am. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.119  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Freewill @1.2.117    4 months ago
Yep!  Me too.

This is what disgusts me most about the people who attack the PPACA.  It didn't affect them at all and it was no skin off their snotty noses or a farthing out of their pockets.  They just didn't want millions of other working Americans who did have the benefits they took for granted to have medical insurance.  BTW, I notice you spent quite a bit of your employer's time here yesterday.  That tells even more about you.  I eagerly await your lame excuses for stealing money for your employer. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.120  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2.115    4 months ago
Please accept my apology.

Accepted.  

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.121  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Freewill @1.2.113    4 months ago
In case you are still confused, the "Marketplace" or "Exchange" are one in the same.

You might want to run that by Jack_TX (one of you) who claimed those terms represented two "subsets"  or "systems" under the PPACA.  Check it out at 1.2.32 and talk it over with him and see if you two can figure out a way to square the circle.  This could be the way out for you---i.e., give you a chance to claim you were right and wrong at the same time. 

 
 
 
Freewill
1.2.122  Freewill  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.2.119    4 months ago
It didn't affect them at all and it was no skin off their snotty noses or a farthing out of their pockets.

You have got to be kidding me right?  You do realize that ALL plans, even those sold off the exchanges, must be PPACA compliant and that the cost of such plans have soared just as the plans offered on the exchanges have for those who don't qualify for subsidies, but perhaps to a lesser degree.  Employer group plans are still the best option for most people and that is why most still prefer that option so that the impact on their families is not as severe.  If you had bothered to read any of the information I provided, or really ANY information about how the PPACA works, you would understand that.  But you haven't.  So I must concluded at this point that you are standing firmly behind a wall of willful ignorance and you are right about one thing, you are a complete waste of my time.

By the way, I AM my employer genius!  And as the owner of a small business I have studied this subject inside and out from the very beginning and have struggled with trying to find the best deal for my employees that didn't also bury us all out of our jobs.  In some years I have settled for plans that were better for my employees and not so much for my family because that is what small business owners do to keep the ship afloat.  

So I really don't give a shit what disgusts you about me.  I am certainly disgusted by the willful ignorance of those who go to such extremes to avoid the truth all the while berating those who are trying to explain it.  I think your tactics are pretty obvious to anyone following this exchange.  So we are done here my friend.  Have a great life, you've certainly earned it right?    

 

 
 
 
Freewill
1.2.123  Freewill  replied to  Jack_TX @1.2.32    4 months ago
The exchange is a subset of the individual market.  All exchange policies are individual market policies.  One can choose to buy a policy without using the exchange, but every policy purchased through an exchange is part of the "individual market".

Jack - Atheist is trying to obfuscate by using the term "individual marketplace" rather than what the healthcare.gov website actually says:

If you're not eligible for lower costs on a health plan because your income is too high, you can still buy health coverage through the Health Insurance Marketplace. To apply, create an account or log in to your existing account.

The glossary at healthcare.gov is VERY clear.

A service that helps people shop for and enroll in affordable health insurance. The federal government operates the Marketplace, available at HealthCare.gov, for most states. Some states run their own Marketplaces.
The Health Insurance Marketplace (also known as the “Marketplace” or “exchange”)provides health plan shopping and enrollment services through websites, call centers, and in-person help.

Small businesses can use the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) Marketplace to provide health insurance for their employees.

When you apply for individual and family coverage through the Marketplace, you’ll provide income and household information. You’ll find out if you qualify for:

  • Premium tax credits and other savings that make insurance more affordable
  • Coverage through the Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) in your state
On HealthCare.gov, you may be asked to select your state or enter your ZIP code. If you live in a state that runs its own Marketplace, we’ll send you to your state’s Marketplace website.

So, "If you're not eligible for lower costs on a health plan because your income is too high,you can still buy health coverage through the Health Insurance Marketplace" , is abundantly clear.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.124  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Freewill @1.2.122    4 months ago
You do realize that ALL plans, even those sold off the exchanges, must be PPACA compliant and that the cost of such plans have soared just as the plans offered on the exchanges have for those who don't qualify for subsidies, but perhaps to a lesser degree.

First off,  as you yourself told us, you don't even have to shop for insurance since you're covered by your company policy so you don't have the first clue about rising costs on the individual policy market.  Second, you'll need to provide a source (and not some rightwing pukefunnel, either) for your claim.  Meanwhile I'll supply some background facts on health care costs:

How the ACA Slowed the Rise of Health Care Costs

By 2009, rising health care costs were consuming the federal budget.Medicare and Medicaidcost $676 billion. That was 19 percent of the total budget of $3.5 trillion. Payroll taxes only cover half of Medicare and none of Medicaid. This so-called mandatory spending also included federal and veterans' pensions, welfare, andinterest on the debt. It consumed 60 percent of the federal budget. Congress knew something had to be done to rein in these costs. 

By 2020, retiring baby boomers will drive Medicare and Medicaid costs to 24 percent of the budget. As health care costs increase faster than economic growth, Medicare taxes and the Trust Fund will cover less and less. By 2030, the Trust Fund would be bankrupt, and taxes would only pay for 48 percent of the costs.

Federal health care costs are part of the mandatory budget. That means they must be paid. As a result, they are eating up funding that could have gone to discretionary budget items, such as defense, education, or rebuilding infrastructure. 

Obamacare's goal is to reduce these costs. First, it required insurance companies to provide preventive care for free. That treats chronic conditions before they required expensive hospital emergency room treatments. It also reduced payments to Medicare Advantage insurers.

Since 2010, when the Affordable Care Act was signed, health care costs rose by 4.3 percent a year. It achieved its goal of lowering the growth rate of health care spending. 

In 2010, the government predicted that Medicare costs would rise 20 percent in just five years. That’s from $12,376 per beneficiary in 2014 to $14,913 by 2019. Instead, analysts were shocked to find out spending had dropped by $1,000 per person, to $11,328 by 2014. It happened due to four specific reasons:

  1. The ACA reduced payments to Medicare Advantage providers. The providers' costs for administering Parts A and B were rising much faster than the government’s costs. The providers' couldn't justify the higher prices. Instead, it appeared as though they were overcharging the government. 
  2. Medicare began rolling out accountable care organizations, bundled payments , and value-based payments. Spending on hospital care has stayed the same since 2011. Part of the reason for this is that hospital readmissions dropped by 150,000 a year in 2012 and 2013. That’s one of the areas hospitals get penalized if they exceed standards. It resulted in increased efficiency and quality of patient care. 
  3. High-income earners paid more in Medicare payroll taxes and Part B and D premiums. For more, see Obamacare taxes.
  4. In 2013, sequestration lowered Medicare payments by 2 percent to providers and plans.

Based on these new trends,Medicare spending was projectedto grow just 5.3 percent a year between 2014 and 2024. 

Health Care Costs by Year

Year National Health Spending (Billions) Percent Growth Cost Per Person Event
1960          $27.2 NA       $146 Recession
1961        $29.1   7.1%       $154 Recession ended
1962        $31.8   9.3%       $166 n/a
1963        $34.6   8.6%       $178 n/a
1964        $38.4  11.0%       $194 LBJ started Medicare and Medicaid
1965        $41.9   9.0%       $209 LBJ started Medicare and Medicaid
1966        $46.1 10.1%       $228 Vietnam War
1967        $51.6  11.9%       $253 n/a
1968        $58.4  13.3%       $284 n/a
1969        $65.9  12.9%       $318 n/a
1970        $74.6  13.1%       $355 Recession
1971        $82.7  11.0%       $389 Wage-price controls
1972        $92.7  12.0%       $431 Stagflation
1973      $102.8  11.0%       $474 Gold standardended. HMO Act
1974      $116.5  13.4%       $534 ERISA / Wage-price controls ended
1975      $133.3  14.4%       $605 Inflation at 6.9%
1976      $152.7  14.6%       $688 Inflation at 4.9%
1977      $173.9  13.8%       $777 Inflation at 6.7%
1978      $195.3  12.4%       $865 Inflation at 9%
1979      $221.5  13.4%       $971 Inflation at 13.3%
1980      $255.3  15.3%    $1,108 Inflation at 12.5%
1981      $296.2  16.0%    $1,273 Fed raised rates
1982      $334.0  12.8%    $1,422 Recession ended
1983      $367.8  10.1%    $1,550 Tax hike and higher defense spending
1984      $405.0  10.1%    $1,692 Tax hike and higher defense spending
1985      $442.9    9.4%    $1,833 n/a
1986      $474.7    7.2%    $1,947 Tax cut
1987      $516.5    8.8%    $2,099 Black Monday
1988      $579.3  12.2%    $2,332 Fed raised rate
1989      $644.8  11.3%    $2,571 S&L crisis
1990      $721.4  11.9%    $2,843 Recession. Inflation at 6.1%
1991      $788.1    9.2%    $3,070 Recession
1992      $854.1    8.4%    $3,287 n/a
1993      $916.6    7.3%    $3,487 HMOs 
1994      $967.2    5.5%    $3,641 n/a
1995   $1,021.6    5.6%    $3,806 Fed raised rate
1996   $1,074.4    5.2%    $3,964 Welfarereform
1997   $1,135.5    5.7%    $4,147 Balanced Budget Act
1998   $1,202.0    5.8%    $4,345 LTCM crisis
1999   $1,278.3    6.4%    $4,576 BBRA
2000   $1,369.7    7.1%    $4,857 BIPA
2001   $1,486.8    8.5%    $5,220 9/11 attacks
2002   $1,629.2    9.6%    $5,668 War on Terror
2003   $1,768.2    8.5%    $6,098 Medicare Modernization Act
2004   $1,896.3    7.2%    $6,481 n/a
2005   $2,024.2    6.7%    $6,855 Bankruptcy Act
2006   $2,156.5    6.5%    $7,233 n/a
2007   $2,295.7    6.5%    $7,628 Inflation at 4.1%
2008   $2,399.1    4.5%    $7,897 Recession slowed spending.
2009   $ 2,495.4    4.0%    $8,143 n/a
2010   $2,598.8    4.1%    $8,412 ACA signed
2011   $2,689.3    3.5%    $8,644 Debt crisis
2012   $2,797.3    4.0%    $8,924 Fiscal cliff
2013   $2,879.0    2.9%    $9,121 ACA taxes
2014   $3,026.2    5.1%    $9,515 Exchanges opened
2015   $3,200.8    5.8%    $9,994 n/a
2016   $3,337.2    4.3%  $10,348 n/a
2017   $3,492.1    3.9%  $10,739 Drug costs rosejust 0.4%.

Those figures aren't limited to premium costs for marketplace plans but they do show that even when the initial parts of Obamacare began to implemented overall healthcare costs (including premiums) began dropping.  Please not the general downward trend after the exchanges (not plural) began operating in 2014). Here's more specific average premium data 2014-2016 for PPACA plans (OEP = open enrollment period): 

512

512

Neither of those trend lines for both years are up, are they? 

source:  https://www.ehealthinsurance.com/

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.2.125  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Freewill @1.2.123    4 months ago
Jack - Atheist is trying to obfuscate by using the term "individual marketplace" rather than what the healthcare.gov website actually says:

As Jack as yet to respond (I can hardly wait) let me show you what he actually wrote in 1.2.32 and then tell me who's doing the "obfuscating:"

The exchange is a subset of the individual market.  All exchange policies are individual market policies.  One can choose to buy a policy without using the exchange, but every policy purchased through an exchange is part of the "individual market".

As far as your "expertise" in the Marketplace are you just now telling us that that's just as an employer and you do purchase your company's health insurance on the exchange?  A few of your comments above seem to be gloating about how you didn't have to bother with the exchange/marketplace/exchange-marketplace.  What's going to be? 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.3  Jack_TX  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1    5 months ago
In science and applied science (engineering) we constantly seek out facts and truths. 

It's important to specify that you seek out ALL the facts.  Not just the convenient ones that support what you wish was the truth.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
1.3.1  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Jack_TX @1.3    5 months ago

Why would anyone of any integrity do otherwise? 

Belief and faith are for the intellectually lazy.  That's why facts and truth have such a hard time gaining traction in our political system these days.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.3.2  Jack_TX  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.3.1    5 months ago
Why would anyone of any integrity do otherwise?  Belief and faith are for the intellectually lazy.

Asked and answered. 

It is much easier to fixate on 1/4 of the facts and let one's emotions take over.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.3.4  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Jack_TX @1.3    4 months ago
It's important to specify that you seek out ALL the facts. 

Interesting you'd say that Jack because when you're presented with the cold, hard facts (see 1.2 thread above) you fight them, then deny them until you can no longer do that at which point you just run away from them.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.3.5  Jack_TX  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.3.4    4 months ago

That's just ridiculous on a whole new level.  

You were presented with the fact that conclusively proved you were wrong.   You proved beyond a doubt you have no clue about the Affordable Care Act, and you're arguing with somebody who consults on it for a living. 

Just stop.  Walk away before you embarrass yourself further.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.3.6  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Jack_TX @1.3.5    4 months ago
You were presented with the fact that conclusively proved you were wrong. 

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

You wish.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
1.3.7  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Jack_TX @1.3    4 months ago

But that’s what many progressives do....

 
 
 
Don Overton
1.4  Don Overton  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1    5 months ago

Yet it seems that the right doesn't like fact checking, regardless of the source.  Why is that?

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.4.1  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Don Overton @1.4    4 months ago
Yet it seems that the right doesn't like fact checking, regardless of the source.  Why is that?

It's their ideological imperative to refuse to accept facts.  And it enrages them if you don't knuckle under to their ignorance and keep pushing those facts into the faces as all the comments in the 1.2 and 1.3 threads above illustrate. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
1.4.2  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Don Overton @1.4    4 months ago

because the fact checkers we have been exposed to flat out suck.  They just lie to promote the msm and shield them from legitimate real competitors.  Fact checkers support their own version of issues and have no redeeming value.  

 
 
 
Kathleen
2  Kathleen    5 months ago

I think a lot of it comes from opinions and exaggeration and distorting the truth.  Politicians are notorious for stretching the truth and smoothing over any bad vibes against them. When I see actual accomplishments from them, then I believe them. 

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
2.1  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Kathleen @2    5 months ago

Too many talking heads of both colors are making millions sewing hate and lies.  Fear sells copy and advertising space while lining the pockets that sell it. 

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.1  MUVA  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @2.1    5 months ago

I agree the talking heads deal in talking points and partisanship.I listen to what the actual politician says not the rehash on a news network.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
2.1.2  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  MUVA @2.1.1    5 months ago

Hell..... What politicians do speaks volumes over what they often say 99.9% of the time.

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.3  MUVA  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @2.1.2    5 months ago

Just what they say now whether it is true or not is another story. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
2.1.4  Kathleen  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @2.1    5 months ago

Greed is the root of most problems and there is another that I will not bring up.  Politics is a dirty business, one career that I would never be a part of. We all like to talk about it, but if you think about it, it's quite scary.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
2.1.5  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Kathleen @2.1.4    5 months ago

I wish you weren't so right Kathleen...... Governing our country should not be dirty, but power does corrupt.  The framers of the constitution knew this, worked hard to prevent it, and yet we have still allowed it to happen.

Now we find ourselves deeply divided as a nation, with a small percentage making financial gains laughing all the way to the bank.

  • From Vietnam in the 60s & 70s, we learned that our government would lie to us.
  • In the 80's the secular barrier of church and state was compromised.
  • Recently the Citizens United paved the way for unlimited money to corrupt the system beyond comprehension.

These are but a few critical lines crossed that have gotten us where we are as a country today. 

 
 
 
WallyW
2.1.6  WallyW  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @2.1    5 months ago
Fear sells copy and advertising space while lining the pockets that sell it. 

Lots of lies and fear are being used by the Democrats and their far left supporters.

Climate change being the best example, or trying to convict Trump for some alleged crimes despite the lack of evidence.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
2.1.7  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  WallyW @2.1.6    5 months ago

You couldn't be more wrong Wally, and science has evidence to back up that it is conservatives have larger fear centers, and politicians use that knowledge.

Look up the University of Nebraska study and amiglia.  The study was verified by London university.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
2.1.8  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @2.1.7    5 months ago

Hmmmmm.  When confronted with facts Wally, you run away....?  That's pretty useless.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.9  Dulay  replied to  WallyW @2.1.6    5 months ago
trying to convict Trump for some alleged crimes despite the lack of evidence.

If the SDNY didn't have evidence that 'Individual-1' violated the law, neither the Judge or the lawyers would have allowed the allegations to be cited in Cohen's charging documents, nor would Cohen's lawyers have allowed him to make that allegation under oath in his Plea statement. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.1.10  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @2.1    5 months ago
Too many talking heads of both colors are making millions sewing hate and lies.  Fear sells copy and advertising space while lining the pockets that sell it. 

Allowing for the truth that "all politicians lie" there's still a vast difference in quantity and degree of it between the two major parties in this country.  That is an obvious fact as evidenced just by the current occupant of the WH alone whose lie count, big and small and counting repetitions of them, is rapidly approaching the the 10,000 mark in just two years.*  On just two issues alone:  climate change and voter fraud, the Republican party has set itself apart as the Party of the Big Lie.  It is simply not true that "they're all the same." 

*It's not just the quantity but the magnitude of his record setting lies.  Fact Checker  had to create a new category for "The Bottomless Pinocchio" for Trump. 

 
 
 
Don Overton
2.1.11  Don Overton  replied to  MUVA @2.1.1    5 months ago

You do????

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
2.1.12  XXJefferson#51  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @2.1.8    4 months ago

Wally is right.  

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3  Perrie Halpern R.A.    5 months ago

It's not as easy as you would think. 

Years ago, there was a story I was trying to fact check since it just sounded too ridiculous. I went to Google as most do. Well, it took something like 37 pages to get to the truth, which was what I expected. The problem is that once a story is told, other news outlets start to carry the same story over and over. So if it is news of the day, good luck in trying to find out the truth. You have to be very patient. 

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
3.1  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3    5 months ago

My problem is when it comes to statistics.  I think that the government organizations like the CBO, or the like would tend to be the most reliable when it comes to data.  Outside of there I don't know what or who to trust since statistics can have so many nuances to them.

Hope you're well Perrie.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @3.1    5 months ago

I have to agree with you that looking for solid sources is probably better than just going to google. When I look for information, I try to find original source material. So, for example, if I am looking for a criminal report, I will look at the FBI reports. I then just present what they have. The readers take away can be amazingly different, from what is actually in the report, that is personal bias. 

I'm fine and I hope that you are. I have been enjoying the good discussion you have been engaged with. It is refreshing! 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
3.1.2  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.1    5 months ago
I have to agree with you that looking for solid sources is probably better than just going to google.

I use Wikipedia a lot, not as a primary source but because most of the articles have linked footnotes.  That allows me to verify sources and often leads to additional and often original source material such as raw CBO data.  

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.3  Dulay  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @3.1    5 months ago
My problem is when it comes to statistics. I think that the government organizations like the CBO, or the like would tend to be the most reliable when it comes to data. Outside of there I don't know what or who to trust since statistics can have so many nuances to them.

I find that GAO reports help to flesh out the 'nuances'. They cite their methodology, the history of the oversight of the agency being reported on, investigate from all sides of the issue, provide data and do a pretty good job of refuting BS. 

As an example, here is the June, 2018 GAO report entitled:

SOUTHWEST BORDER SECURITY

CBP Is Evaluating Designs and Locations for Border Barriers but Is Proceeding Without Key Information 

https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/693488.pdf

It's quite illuminating about what's really going on with CBP decision making and appropriations. It also makes it pretty clear that as of June 2018, the CBP had NO CLUE what best to build or how much any of it will cost. They still don't. 

Here is an excerpt from page 30: 

In April 2018, CBP officials told us that they have efforts under way that will address S&T’s recommendations and are still considering options for how they will integrate the planned technologies.

So as of April 2018, the CBP STILL had no clue how to integrate technologies like cameras and video displays into barriers. That was only one of the findings in that report that floored me. 

There are a bunch more GAO reports on this subject that are being ignored by the GOP and Trump. 

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
3.1.4  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.1    5 months ago

The goal is to get people out of their trenches to talk.

Kind of like the WWI Christmas ceasefire.......  The ones that still want to throw grenades are easily spotted.  They are to be ignored.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
3.1.5  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Dulay @3.1.3    5 months ago

This is the most dangerous point...... people are willingly ignoring valid data.

When the truth is attacked, that's how democracy dies. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3.1.6  Bob Nelson  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @3.1.4    5 months ago
The goal is to get people out of their trenches to talk.

I see no talk on NT. Food-fights are not talk.

Talking requires a desire for exchange.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.7  Dulay  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @3.1.4    5 months ago
The goal is to get people out of their trenches to talk.

In order to talk, at some point we have to agree on the FACTS. 

Kind of like the WWI Christmas ceasefire.......  The ones that still want to throw grenades are easily spotted.  They are to be ignored.

Sometimes grenades, 'truth bombs' if you will, are what's needed. I believe that every once in a blue moon an entrenched person can be 'blown' out of their trench by being enlightened by FACTS. Facts have a way of creeping under their skin and eventually, ever so slowly and slightly, they change their perspective. 

 
 
 
Don Overton
3.1.8  Don Overton  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @3.1    5 months ago

Governmental organizations are often dependent on the data the Administration that supervises them provides which changes with every change of administrations.  Some more honest than others

 
 
 
It Is ME
4  It Is ME    5 months ago

"Fact checking is as important as ever in today's fast paced news onslaught."

The REAL FACT (fact checking not needed here):

Once a story is put out there...… It's out there....no matter the "Fact Checking" that happens "After -the-fact" !

The media doesn't give a shit if something is correct or not anymore. They "MUST" get that friggin story out their first. They'll …… well …… maybe ….."Retract it LATER" !

Toooooo LATE !

It's already been embedded in the "Minds of the Simple" !

 
 
 
321steve
4.1  321steve  replied to  It Is ME @4    5 months ago

Bon Jour 

LOL 

Nailed it .

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
tomwcraig
5  tomwcraig    5 months ago

Fact Checking is always important.  However, it is YOUR responsibility to do so.  Allowing others, like the media, to fact check for you is lazy and can exacerbate misinformation as they insert a political spin into it.  I don't trust the professional fact-checkers and I prefer to make up my own mind about things and not let someone else tell me what to think.  Anyone relying on Snopes, Politifact, or any other fact-checking site is being told what to think about something by someone else and essentially is giving up on their responsibilities to themselves.  That is part of the problem with today's society.  We allow others to interpret the "facts" of claims.  

For example, I saw an ad for a product the other day.  The ad said to fact check their claims in "Good Housekeeping".  Essentially what it was telling people to do is check the tv ad with their ad in "Good Housekeeping".  That is absolute spin, since you only have one source pretending to be multiple sources to reinforce their product's value.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
5.1  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  tomwcraig @5    5 months ago

Tom, you're exactly right.  Unless you have video and audio, you have to go to multiple sources to really try to boil down to facts.  Me, if I do use news outlets, I use BBC and Reuters to start with.  If it is a news source I'm not familiar with, I check it's reputation as being left or right leaning, and take that into account.

Thanks for your opinion.  Regards.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
5.1.1  Jasper2529  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @5.1    5 months ago

I agree with your comment.

If it is a news source I'm not familiar with, I check it's reputation as being left or right leaning, and take that into account.

Which source(s) do you use for this?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
5.1.2  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @5.1    5 months ago

Funny that you mention using the BBC and Reuters. I often go to the British press to check a story. The reason being is that they are not that invested in what happens here, and so the reporting is going to be more accurate. And yes I do take into consideration left or right leaning, but I often find, that no matter the source there, their actually reporting of events tend to be far more accurate. 

 
 
 
tomwcraig
5.1.3  tomwcraig  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.2    5 months ago
their actually reporting of events tend to be far more accurate.

Part of the reason for that is the strong libel and slander laws, where the news source has to document every single source otherwise they are easily found liable in British courts.

 
 
 
tomwcraig
5.1.4  tomwcraig  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @5.1    5 months ago

For straight up news reporting, I watch OANN.  They seem to be more like CNN from back when it first came on air than even Fox News.  Granted, I tend to watch The Daily Ledger more than anything as I happen to like Graham Ledger's take on most things.  He tries to make an analysis of issues based on the US Constitution, which is something I wish everyone would do.  Heck, he made the point that Congress needs to call the militia out on the border due to the immigration issue as Article I Section 8 Clause 15 and to fix the immigration issue as required by Article I Section 8 Clause 4.  And, notice what the first clause in Article I Section 8 states:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript

and in the Preamble it says:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
5.1.5  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Jasper2529 @5.1.1    5 months ago

Britannica online, Worldbookonline, Wikipedia

All three can give you baseline data on sources, political leanings, Etc.  The data is there for anyone who wants to get to the bottom of things.  You have to go in with an open mind and be ready to have some of your preconceived notions exposed. 

 
 
 
epistte
5.1.6  epistte  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.2    5 months ago
Funny that you mention using the BBC and Reuters. I often go to the British press to check a story. The reason being is that they are not that invested in what happens here, and so the reporting is going to be more accurate. And yes I do take into consideration left or right leaning, but I often find, that no matter the source there, their actually reporting of events tend to be far more accurate. 

This is exactly why I like the BBC and AlJazeera for news because they don't have a dig in the fight.  The BBC is publicly funded and have a very high standard of journalism that they need to protect to continue their current level of funding. The CBC(Canada) is the same and they also offer a good eyewitness of the US. 

McClatchey is also a good news source that many people have not heard of.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
5.1.7  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  epistte @5.1.6    5 months ago

Did you ever wonder why Al Jazeera was banned from countries like Canada?

 
 
 
epistte
5.1.8  epistte  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.1.7    5 months ago
Did you ever wonder why Al Jazeera was banned from countries like Canada?

I was not aware that they were banned in Canada.

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
5.1.9  Studiusbagus  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.1.7    5 months ago
Did you ever wonder why Al Jazeera was banned from countries like Canada?

All the more reason for fact checking...

They print and broadcast in Canada and their office is in Toronto.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
5.1.10  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Studiusbagus @5.1.9    5 months ago

I must have been confused.

https://globalnews.ca/news/3651477/israel-shut-downal-jazeera-journalists/

Maybe even that story should be fact checked.  Who fact checks the fact checkers?

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
5.1.12  Studiusbagus  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.1.10    5 months ago

The confusion I can understand. Why you linked to Israel's efforts to oust al jazeera I'll never know.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
5.1.13  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Studiusbagus @5.1.12    5 months ago

It was probably because I recalled that somewhere Al Jazeera was banned and thought it was Canada when it was Israel. I believe an Arab Gulf State has banned it as well even though it is from Qatar.

I am sure, though, that a number of years ago when I was living in Canada there was at least talk about banning it there.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
5.1.14  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @5.1    5 months ago
Unless you have video and audio, you have to go to multiple sources to really try to boil down to facts. 

Even when one does have that evidence there will always be those who will do anything they can to pervert it.  The recent Nathan Phillips-Nick Sandmann imbroglio is a good example.  Within a couple of days of the initial brief clips and pix were shown, the right had put out a myriad of different clips and pix that were claimed to be evidence that it was Phillips, not Sandmann, who was the cause of it all.  Even when I produced a 90 min uninterrupted video clip of the entire event which backed-up Phillips' version exactly it was either ignored or dismissed as "fake."  Never underestimate the ability of some people to never abandon a lie no matter how much evidence is against them. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.1.15  Sean Treacy  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @5.1.14    5 months ago
hen I produced a 90 min uninterrupted video clip of the entire event which backed-up Phillips' version exactly it was either ignored or dismissed as "fake

It's awesome that every journalist who has apologized for their disgusting actions and the defenders of Sandmann rely on the unedited 90 minute video to prove Sandmann's innocence, and you are literally claiming it somehow indicts him. What a perfect encapsulation of your relationship to reality. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.16  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.15    5 months ago

How accurate and true!

Kudos!

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
5.1.17  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  epistte @5.1.8    5 months ago
I was not aware that they were banned in Canada.

It's not.  Buzz loves to drop BS bombs whenever he can.  But here's  list of countries that  block Al Jazeera broadcasts:

Saudi Arabia

UAE

Egypt

Near as I can determine, Israel doesn't even block AJ broadcasts. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
5.1.18  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  tomwcraig @5.1.3    4 months ago
Part of the reason for that is the strong libel and slander laws, where the news source has to document every single source otherwise they are easily found liable in British courts.

The lack of which in this country  your Scumbag abuses --unsuccessfully--by threatening to sue people who print the ugly truth about him. 

 
 
 
nightwalker
5.2  nightwalker  replied to  tomwcraig @5    4 months ago

Another fun fact, I was looking at a website builder and as part of the package, they supply 20 free "endorsements" in the "customer comments".

Gets you off to a good start. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6  Bob Nelson    5 months ago

I agree that facts must be checked... and I am sickened by the idea.

Worse, some people have a very different idea of what fact-checking means. When a person's reality is determined by dogma rather than evidence, then "fact-checking" means "verification of conformity to dogma" rather than conformity to evidence.

Careful cherry-picking can confirm or infirm almost any proposition. It's hard to collect the evidence honestly... and some people don't even try.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
6.1  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Bob Nelson @6    5 months ago

The people that sicken me are those (while they are free to do it....) knowingly promulgate false stories/false data from debunked sources time and time again.  Lies are still lies no matter how dogmatically you tell them. 

I guess it goes back to one of my base philosophies....."We live in an infinite world with finite people."    

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6.1.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @6.1    5 months ago
knowingly promulgate

We have some members who do this all the time. And I'm not sure they know they're doing it.

They are so attached to their dogmatic reality that they simply do not register contrary evidence. "Proving they are wrong" is meaningless. Their Truth is Truer than any evidence...

 
 
 
MUVA
6.1.2  MUVA  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.1.1    5 months ago

I'm sure you see it all the time.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
6.1.3  XXJefferson#51  replied to  MUVA @6.1.2    5 months ago

Indeed.  Fact checking as presently decomposed is worse than useless.  It is at best confirmation bias by msm sources to attack new and alternative media competition.  At worst it’s a content control tool used to censor opinions and sources some would rather not be exposed to.  

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
6.1.4  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @6.1.3    5 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
6.1.5  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @6.1.4    5 months ago

I was really enjoying the way the non acrimonious conversations were going here. A shame it had to get personal. 

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
6.1.6  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @6.1.5    5 months ago

And when it comes to C4P Doc...... Lets just leave it at waste of time as I see the purple pen is out and active.

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
6.1.8  Studiusbagus  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @6.1.3    5 months ago
Fact checking as presently decomposed is worse than useless.  It is at best confirmation bias by msm sources to attack new and alternative media competition.  At worst it’s a content control tool used to censor opinions and sources some would rather not be exposed to.  

Oh bullshit! 

 Your seeds in particulr have been debunked so much there's a rythm to it.

Gets proven wrong and it's ignored.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
6.1.9  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @6.1.5    5 months ago

"Physician, heal thyself!"

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
6.1.10  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @6.1.9    4 months ago

Where did I ever say I was a physician?

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
6.1.11  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Studiusbagus @6.1.8    4 months ago

In your heart you know I’m right! 

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
6.1.12  Studiusbagus  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @6.1.11    4 months ago
In your heart you know I’m right! 

Sorry, too many facts of your seeds being blatant lies. And the fact that your comments for the most part are proven wrong or proven to be outright and deliberate lies is factual history that you ignore when the proof is presented. You've abandoned seeds for this very reason.

I demand honesty from myself, I do not expect any less from anyone else. It has served me successfully for over 40 years. You will never see anywhere in my history where someone has accused me of being dishonest and being accurate. 

Have I made mistakes? Plenty. But I will admit to them and learn. 

I honestly cannot say that about you.

That's what is in my heart, not what you try to say what's in there.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
6.1.13  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Studiusbagus @6.1.8    4 months ago

Wrong on every count.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
6.1.14  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Studiusbagus @6.1.12    4 months ago

You disagreeing with my seeds or my posts does not make them wrong or lies.  Posting an opposing POV does not debunk or make a lie out of mine.  What I seed is very vanilla mainstream Christian conservative that has to run a censorship gauntlet to even appear here.  

 
 
 
Split Personality
6.1.15  Split Personality  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @6.1.14    4 months ago
You disagreeing with my seeds or my posts does not make them wrong or lies.  Posting an opposing POV does not debunk or make a lie out of mine

That's ironic, isn't it?

You routinely post subjective seeds, declaring those mostly conservatively sourced seeds to be

"the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"  while declaring everything secular, liberal and progressive to be lies.

And yes, you declare opposing views as lies, wrongheaded, unpatriotic and or the unAmerican work of Satan.

You really cannot have it both ways and not have your credibility questioned.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
6.1.16  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @6.1.10    4 months ago
Where did I ever say I was a physician?

What's the "Doc" part of your handle mean,, then?

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
6.1.17  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @6.1.11    4 months ago
In your heart you know I’m right! 

But his brain knows otherwise.  

 
 
 
Split Personality
6.1.18  Split Personality  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @6.1.16    4 months ago

Only Navy Corpsmen are assigned to USMC forward units or on humanitarian missions

and are traditionally referred to as "Doc"by all Marines.

While still in the Navy they are attached to the USMC 1st Medical Battalion...

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
6.1.19  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Split Personality @6.1.18    4 months ago

I had a feeling he was a corpsman so he is "medical" in the general sense.  Which means my comment applied.  

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
7  Nowhere Man    5 months ago

Fact checking is becoming nigh impossible, unless you want to spend an inordinate amount of time at it.....

Even then you have to be wary of who's facts you choose to accept.....

No ones facts are immune from bias anymore, just look at Dan Rather not tell the truth.....

Been this way for decades.

Many of the people here can't get past their ideology or in their dogmas reject any fact or truth that goes against their dogmas....

The facts that upset some people they do not want to deal with, it is easier to ideologically excuse without knowing the actual facts....

Big part of the emotional division of hate we see today.....

And I have to add my opinion, it is the liberal side that refuses to accept facts, and is the most strident in claiming it is the opposition that is refusing to see the facts. My experience leads me to the truth that the ones claiming the loudest are the most guilty.....

Although it is an issue both sides need to get over...

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
7.1  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Nowhere Man @7    5 months ago

"Refusing to accept facts......."

Funny, I have the exact problem with those with conservative bents. 

Care to venture to guess what percentages individuals trained in the scientific method (scientists, engineers, mathematicians) consider themselves conservative? I'll let you have the same enjoyment that I had in researching this point.

Take care.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
7.1.1  Dean Moriarty  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @7.1    5 months ago

Care to explain how you fact checked the percentage of engineers that are conservative? 

 
 
 
epistte
7.1.2  epistte  replied to  Dean Moriarty @7.1.1    5 months ago
Care to explain how you fact checked the percentage of engineers that are conservative? 

Engineers cannot operate on beliefs and faith because people get hurt when they reject facts in favor of opinions.  Facts and science are the holy grail and those who don't obey don't last long in the industry. Most engineer tend to be pragmatists and want proof. You don't stick your neck far outside of the lines because people's lives and our reputation is riding on it.

 If someone tries to sell me a new parts with claims of stronger/better/lighter....... I have an automatic 25% BS factor that I subtract from all claims until I can prove them to be true because people in marketing and sales aren't engineers and their name aren't on the prints. 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
7.1.3  Nowhere Man  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @7.1    5 months ago
Care to venture to guess what percentages individuals trained in the scientific method (scientists, engineers, mathematicians) consider themselves conservative?

No, and I'm not prepared to do the research either. {chuckle}

Engineers within their professions cannot indulge in opinion or speculation, the risks are too great. outside their fields.... another story.

Scientists? when doing research? probably are conservative but not entirely. just the research I've done on the gun issue alone tells me there are way too many of them willing to shade their research with their opinions.....

Mathematicians, again, within their mathematical fields there are rules by which the game is played, but just taking a look at the stats guys tells me there is some leeway there for opinion to effect the outcomes....

I always come back to the level of absolutism in the opinions of the specific individual. And scientists are the least able to claim absolute factual rendition, Mathematicians are next and Engineers are the closest when specifically working in their specific field.

And holding to absolute fealty to scientific discipline as fact is laughable at best.... 

Those that do are over all other sources are very short sighted....

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
7.1.4  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  epistte @7.1.2    5 months ago
Maintaining skepticism of stated facts is a solid foundation for life, and I find you to maintain a high level of skepticism Epistte.
For mechanical parts, finite element analysis modeling is a good place to start.  It is always best if you can make your model function/fail in the same manner with applied loads it sees in the real world.  Then you know that your model is close to real world, and can make improvement from there.  Basically reverse engineering.  From there you would generate your revised prototype to qualify your new design.  You're sharp enough to understand this approach too.
The computer simulations are getting better all the time too...!  Too bad we can't apply them to our elected officials.  They only change relative to poll data. 

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
7.1.5  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Dean Moriarty @7.1.1    5 months ago

What..... and deprive you of the learning experience of doing your own research for a change?

 
 
 
epistte
7.1.6  epistte  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @7.1.4    5 months ago

I love FEA and CFD but I also know nit to rely on it if it is possible to build a full scale prototype that can be tested before it goes into production or into the customers hands for review.

I'm old school enough to wish that I could run a few politicians or others though a mechanical test battery, but there are definite human rights violations that would happen if you subjected the human body to torsion or impact testing.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
7.1.7  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  epistte @7.1.6    5 months ago

Electro-shock might be a hoot-n-a-half though......!

 
 
 
epistte
7.1.8  epistte  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @7.1.7    5 months ago
Electro-shock might be a hoot-n-a-half though......!

We could Magnaflux a partisan pundit or a Senator, but it would only be embarrassing with the dye.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
7.1.9  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  epistte @7.1.8    5 months ago

I've not magnafluxed anything in decades.... That could be fun.

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
7.1.10  Studiusbagus  replied to  epistte @7.1.2    5 months ago
 If someone tries to sell me a new parts with claims of stronger/better/lighter....... I have an automatic 25% BS factor that I subtract from all claims until I can prove them to be true

Hmmmm, I could swear I've been in your office before...

You were the PA that wanted astm results.....

I was a manufacturers rep many moons ago. My specialty was Civil. Anywhere above ground I backed away. Same reason, I wouldn't want to pitch a bridge fixture and live with deaths if I was wrong.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
7.2  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Nowhere Man @7    5 months ago
Even then you have to be wary of who's facts you choose to accept.....

People can have their own opinions but, they can't have their own facts. Facts can be proven, where opinions, for the most part, cannot. When someone says they have their own facts to back up a claim that goes against a set of facts that have been proven, then I must take their claims with a grain of salt and, check out the facts for myself, the real facts, not the ones that are formed by opinion and, then "proven" to form the opinion as fact.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
7.2.1  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @7.2    5 months ago

Spot on target GMR!

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
7.2.2  Nowhere Man  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @7.2    5 months ago
People can have their own opinions but, they can't have their own facts. Facts can be proven were opinions, for the most part, cannot. When someone says they have their own facts to back up a claim that goes against a set of facts that have been proven, then I must take their claims with a grain of salt and, check out the facts for myself, the real facts, not the ones that are formed by opinion and, then "proven" to form the opinion as fact.

Simple apply your logic to all the different scientists on the gun issue.... there are lots of liberal scientists that do studies based upon incomplete information, yet still give opinions they claim are based upon fact.... there are other scientists that do the same that agree with the conservative side....

How you decide the veracity of the study is dependent on which sides facts you agree with....

So as far as veracity of fact? you lost the scientists right there.

Your down to engineers and mathematicians.....

Anyone remember Galloping Gertie? Hartford Civic Center Roof Collapse? and any number of other newly minted engineering projects that turned out not so well? They also had a lot of engineering studies that claimed in the opinion of the engineering reviewer they shouldn't have collapsed..... what about their facts?

Lost the engineers right there...

Now your down to mathematicians?...... How bout mathematical theories.....

The one example that jumped immediately to mind, Lamé’s famous incorrect proof, using factorization in the ring of cyclotomic integers, of that result; the error was the assumption of unique factorization in a ring that did not (necessarily) have it, and that error is directly related to the development of algebraic number theory.

That not good enough?

Chevalier de Méré’s mistaken idea that the probability of tossing a six on four tosses of a single die is the same as the probability of tossing a double-six on 24 tosses of a pair of dice. This mistake actually did prompt serious mathematical discussion and helped advance the modern theory of probability.

Another you say?

The Hyatt Regency in Kansas City? the walkway collapse? killing over 200 people? During the ensuing lawsuits, it came out that neither the steel company nor the engineering firm in charge of construction had even bothered to do a back-of-the-envelope calculation that would have shown them the glaring flaw.

So there you go, you've lost all three disciplines....

You have no one to look at for absolute perfection on their facts.....

So again I state with absolute logical certainty in this truth......

....you have to be wary of who's facts you choose to accept.....

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
7.2.3  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @7.2.1    5 months ago

Thank you 1.

 
 
 
epistte
7.2.4  epistte  replied to  Nowhere Man @7.2.2    5 months ago
Anyone remember Galloping Gertie? Hartford Civic Center Roof Collapse? and any number of other newly minted engineering projects that turned out not so well? They also had a lot of engineering studies that claimed in the opinion of the engineering reviewer they shouldn't have collapsed..... what about their facts?

Th new San Francisco bus terminal could have been a disaster except for 2 people who saw something and told the engineers. I wonder if it was a design mistake or a fabrication mistake that cause a very large beam to fail. If that beam would have collapsed when the building was full of people at rush hour the loss of life could have exceeded the Hyatt Regency.

https://www.enr.com/articles/46293-completion-of-repairs-to-san-franciscos-troubled-salesforce-transit-center-expected-in-june

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
7.2.5  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Nowhere Man @7.2.2    5 months ago
....you have to be wary of who's facts you choose to accept.....

Without realizing it, you have proven my statement above, you can have your own opinions but, not your own facts, the examples that you provided show that somewhere along the line someone had an opinion before seeking the facts and, they formed the facts to fit an opinion rather than looking for the facts with an open mind and, then forming an opinion around the facts.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
7.2.6  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Nowhere Man @7.2.2    5 months ago

The KC Hyatt was one that struck close to home.  My girlfriend and I were suppose to be there, and in the end, we decided to stay at her place and watch old movies.....

Given the examples (especially the Hiatt) you are confusing human error as malicious intent.  When a person lies, they know what they are doing.  True to nature scientists, mathematicians, and engineers never intentionally look to deceive.  But liars do.  Can you find scientists, and mathematicians, and engineers that have lied?  Sure you can.  Look at those bought off by the cigarette and oil industries.  That would indicate a link between greed and lying would it not? 

Was not the church responsible for pressuring Galileo?  The pressures being put on the sciences today are coming from all directions.

Regards my friend. 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
7.2.7  Nowhere Man  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @7.2.5    5 months ago

The main problem is with every single one of those examples I gave above, the facts used were understood as the best facts available at that time....... Subsequently after the mistake took it's usual course and the assumptions based upon incorrect facts, investigations were done and new facts emerged.....

So much for the "Open Mind" approach to facts.... In actual practice the "Open Mind" usually isn't applied until AFTER the disaster based upon known facts....

The only way to avoid disaster is if all factual knowledge is known beforehand. Are you claiming that all factual knowledge is already known? Cause if not, then we will continue to have to accept that every scientific, mathematical and engineering conclusion is an opinion based upon known facts.....

This is not philosophy here or even logic, it is common sense....

Facts are but one part of the knowledge equation...... Basing ones outlook solely upon known facts is a course that will cause disaster eventually.

AS we have already gave ample examples of....

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
7.2.8  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Nowhere Man @7.2.7    5 months ago

Life is messy, and one learns nothing until one experiments.  Failures are usually better teachers than successes as well.

Yes, I'm a big fan of the Darwin Awards!

https://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin2018.html

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
7.2.9  Nowhere Man  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @7.2.6    5 months ago
My girlfriend and I were suppose to be there,

I for one am glad you weren't......

......you are confusing human error as malicious intent.

I never mentioned intent at all, didn't bring it into the discussion for a reason. Intent, especially egregious intent changes everything..... at that point fact has no bearing at all......

I agree that there have been over the years, decades and centuries much external pressures to reject fact and factual conclusion based upon known fact. Profit is one motive, lying to cover ones ass is another, lying to preserve an ideal is also another.... and there are many many more..... No arguments there....

Truth is always subject to the appreciation of those that do not understand it.....

Regards to you too my friend.... Good seeing you post regularly again, I enjoy our little mental exercises....

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
7.2.10  Nowhere Man  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @7.2.8    5 months ago
Yes, I'm a big fan of the Darwin Awards!

Ditto!!!

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
7.2.11  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Nowhere Man @7.2.9    5 months ago

"Truth is always subject to the appreciation of those that do not understand it....."

I like that one!  Mind if I use it from time to time?

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
7.2.12  Nowhere Man  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @7.2.11    5 months ago

Go for it.....

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
7.2.13  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Nowhere Man @7.2.7    5 months ago
The main problem is with every single one of those examples I gave above, the facts used were understood as the best facts available at that time....... Subsequently after the mistake took it's usual course and the assumptions based upon incorrect facts, investigations were done and new facts emerged.....

So much for the "Open Mind" approach to facts.... In actual practice the "Open Mind" usually isn't applied until AFTER the disaster based upon known facts....

The only way to avoid disaster is if all factual knowledge is known beforehand. Are you claiming that all factual knowledge is already known? Cause if not, then we will continue to have to accept that every scientific, mathematical and engineering conclusion is an opinion based upon known facts.....

This is not philosophy here or even logic, it is common sense....

Facts are but one part of the knowledge equation...... Basing ones outlook solely upon known facts is a course that will cause disaster eventually.

AS we have already gave ample examples of....

It was once a "known fact" that suspension bridges and, bridges in general couldn't be put across the Mississippi river because of its size but, a steel magnate managed to do it using steel and, then supported the strength of his bridge by having an elephant cross it first, the bridge is still standing today.

It was a "known fact" that men couldn't go beyond the "breakneck speed" of 45 miles an hour without dying, well, we know now that we can at least go faster than the speed of sound.

It was a "known fact" that man couldn't fly but, today planes take off from airports every second.

The point here is, that in engineering and, a lot of the sciences new things are learned everyday but, that's science and, science is relatively young compared to some other things, especially engineering, to base everything we consider facts as somehow science based is a mistake.

Fact checking Trump and, other politicians and, yes, Trump can now be considered a politician and, news stories is a known, there can't be two sets of facts when you can use what they say with what is known. When Trump says that all the economic good being done right now is because of him and, him alone, we can fact check that and, we find that under Obama is when all of this economic boom started under him and, because of things he did while he was in office. When Trump says his wall will keep immigrants out we must ask ourselves were in history a wall managed to keep anyone out, the facts are there, we just have to look them up. Think about this, Trump boasted that the stock market hit 25k twice during his presidency, that means that it hit 25k and, then dropped which it did, we can look at the stock charts and, see that for ourselves, that means that the stock market since Trump took office hasn't really gone anywhere, under Obama the stock market did really well and, we can prove that with the same stock charts.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
7.2.14  Nowhere Man  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @7.2.13    5 months ago
Fact checking Trump and, other politicians and, yes, Trump can now be considered a politician and, news stories is a known, there can't be two sets of facts when you can use what they say with what is known. When Trump says that all the economic good being done right now is because of him and, him alone, we can fact check that and, we find that under Obama is when all of this economic boom started under him and, because of things he did while he was in office. When Trump says his wall will keep immigrants out we must ask ourselves were in history a wall managed to keep anyone out, the facts are there, we just have to look them up. Think about this, Trump boasted that the stock market hit 25k twice during his presidency, that means that it hit 25k and, then dropped which it did, we can look at the stock charts and, see that for ourselves, that means that the stock market since Trump took office hasn't really gone anywhere, under Obama the stock market did really well and, we can prove that with the same stock charts.

And you just left fact behind and devolved into all types and classes of personal opinion......

POLITICS IS NOTHING BUT OPINION AS COMPARED TO ANOTHER'S.....

And you hate T-rump.... That is all I need to know about your political rant to completely ignore it....

You have to let go of your politics.... 

This is part of the problem, you go from making a fairly well reasoned argument that facts are important, then equate democrat politics/policies with and as facts....

Everyone is entitled to go off the deep end any time he likes, that is also a fact.....

Enjoy your fact.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
7.2.15  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Nowhere Man @7.2.14    5 months ago

And here we go..... scurrying off to our respective bunkers and lose the opportunity to converse.

This seed is about fact checking being needed to get to the truth and facts.

It is true that the more painful the truth is to someone, the more likely it is to be ignored....disregarded? 

Left/Right I don't care for the most part.  What seems to keep us apart is the getting to the truths and facts we as individual are willing to accept as a basis for the conversation to even start.  As we can't seem to agree with those, we then move on to villainize each other.

 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
7.2.16  Jack_TX  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @7.2.13    5 months ago
we can look at the stock charts and, see that for ourselves, that means that the stock market since Trump took office hasn't really gone anywhere,

You should probably go ahead and look at that chart before you get too certain about this.  You know....since you're talking about the importance of facts and all.....

 
 
 
Jack_TX
7.2.17  Jack_TX  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @7.2.15    5 months ago
It is true that the more painful the truth is to someone, the more likely it is to be ignored....disregarded? 

I think probably so.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
7.2.18  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Nowhere Man @7.2.14    5 months ago
Everyone is entitled to go off the deep end any time he likes, that is also a fact..... Enjoy your fact.

Thank u, for the unsigned permission slip,

as i will N Joy my perception of de fax,

N

i will go deeper than most post

patterns, in the end

middle

beginning to look alot like Christmas

as i fly             off the handle 

that most can't,

or even grasp.

.

The 'Truth' is the 'Truth'

;\

So who's Truth is real ?

The Liar in office, the repeater, or the receiver, of the Lies ?

wherein Lies the Truth?

appears to me, the 'Truth' is "Lying" everywhere

"and that's all i've gotta say about that"

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
7.2.19  Nowhere Man  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @7.2.15    5 months ago
Left/Right I don't care for the most part.  What seems to keep us apart is the getting to the truths and facts we as individual are willing to accept as a basis for the conversation to even start.  As we can't seem to agree with those, we then move on to villainize each other.

I guess you and I were the only ones having a fun conversation there...

Shame... Yes, It could have been so much more without the politics or political slant....

It is true that the more painful the truth is to someone, the more likely it is to be ignored....disregarded? 

Agreed, but then I can't help those that feel it is a win/lose situation and that they must win at all times....

Proves the statement......

Truth is always subject to the appreciation of those that do not understand it.....

......is absolutely valid.

 
 
 
WallyW
7.2.20  WallyW  replied to  Nowhere Man @7.2.2    5 months ago
the steel company nor the engineering firm in charge of construction had even bothered to do a back-of-the-envelope calculation that would have shown them the glaring flaw.
Why would the steel company be at fault. It came down to the engineering of the support rods. The way they were attached wasn't designed to be stout enough to carry the load of bridge and all the people on it

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
7.2.21  Nowhere Man  replied to  WallyW @7.2.20    5 months ago

The point being that all the great and wonderful engineers and materials scientists for the steel producer couldn't take one scrap of paper and make the simple calculation that there was insufficient material in the joint as redesigned to hold both walkways.....

The steel company had liability cause in providing the steel for the project, they have to review the plans and make sure the product they supply is sufficient for all structural joints in the entire project.... In fact it was the Steel company that suggested the change from the original plans cause it would have been much more difficult to provide the originally called for part. The supervising engineers were liable cause they approved the change on the basis that it made the walkways much easier to assemble... A basic simple five minute calculation at any time would have shown the resulting joint to be woefully insufficient to hold within the original design parameters.

The architects were exonerated from all liability in the structural failure itself, but were liable for failing to supervise...

It's not like trotting down to the steel store and asking for this and that sized product......

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
7.2.22  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Nowhere Man @7.2.14    5 months ago
POLITICS IS NOTHING BUT OPINION AS COMPARED TO ANOTHER'S.....

And you hate T-rump.... That is all I need to know about your political rant to completely ignore it....

You have to let go of your politics.... 

This is part of the problem, you go from making a fairly well reasoned argument that facts are important, then equate democrat politics/policies with and as facts....

Everyone is entitled to go off the deep end any time he likes, that is also a fact.....

384What you see here is a FACT one that cannot be disputed, it is the rise of the DOW from 2009 until present. Notice that it is in a constant rise until Trump is elected so, that is a constant rise from 2009 until 2016, then it basically levels off, it shows two hits at 25k, as I said, it could not do that unless there was a fall in the market so, I am right in saying that there has not been a gain in the market since Trump took office.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
7.2.23  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Jack_TX @7.2.16    5 months ago
You should probably go ahead and look at that chart before you get too certain about this.  You know....since you're talking about the importance of facts and all.....

Ok Jack, let's look at it together,

512The DOW from 2009 to the present, please notice the time line and, the rise and, fall of the market.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
7.2.24  Nowhere Man  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @7.2.23    5 months ago

All I see is a comparable market correction in 2018 the same as the one in 2010, 2011, 2015, (after a similar leveling off) 2016 (while continuing to hold level)

The uptick starting after he was elected is similar to the uptick after Obama was elected....

Looks like after the end of 2018 it's recovered over half of what it lost and is going up again....

The chart doesn't prove what your claiming at all.... Unless you can predict the future....

What your claiming is an opinion I'm afraid, not a fact... The chart actually proves it.

Anyone want to notice something else about the chart?

the graphic representation itself, the lines get closer the higher you get in the chart, makes the charted line swing less at the top (T-rumps years) than at the bottom (Obama's years)....

In essence the chart is deceptive in the manner you are choosing to explain it/use it as fact....

 
 
 
epistte
7.2.25  epistte  replied to  WallyW @7.2.20    5 months ago
Why would the steel company be at fault. It came down to the engineering of the support rods. The way they were attached wasn't designed to be stout enough to carry the load of bridge and all the people on it

The support rods were designed correctly but the contractor made a construction change on the fly that didn't use one continuous rod but instead used two rods. The problem was that the connection where the two rods came together wasnt strong enough and it ripped out under load, allowing the walkway collapse. A couple of double plates welded on at the new connection would have prevented the failure. 

Do not allow fabricators to make design changes on the fly without double checking them! 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
7.2.26  Nowhere Man  replied to  epistte @7.2.25    5 months ago
Do not allow fabricators to make design changes on the fly without double checking them! 

Yep, a policy I've always held to when I've designed buildings, ALL design changes have to be approved by the designer....

Best practice.....

 
 
 
epistte
7.2.27  epistte  replied to  Nowhere Man @7.2.26    5 months ago
Yep, a policy I've always held to when I've designed buildings, ALL design changes have to be approved by the designer.... Best practice.....

I had a house that I designed that pushed the materials to the safe limit to achieve what the client wanted, so I drew pages of details of exactly how it was to be constructed and then forced all of the subs to attend a meeting where I laid out the design in detail. They were all forced to sign a statement that they had been informed and would obey the prints to the letter at the close of the meeting. I was doing an inspection and caught one of the framing subs willfully ignoring the prints.  I told him he could not do it and he said it was done and that I would have to live with it. I picked up a reciprocating saw and cut 3 posts in half because it would force them to remove them and built it according to my design. The site boss physically threatened me but I responded by calling my boss who said that either he apologize and do as I said or he had 10 minutes to vacate the site and he would not get any business from us in the future. His business needed us far more than we needed him...........   

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
7.2.28  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Nowhere Man @7.2.24    5 months ago

You are either blind or, deliberately using Trump blinders to make your point. You want a prediction? I'll give you one, by November 2020 we will be starting into a recession, the stock market will fall to the 2012 levels by that time and, people will begin to be laid off from their jobs, if two things don't happen, one the tariffs don't end and, two Trump quits treating our allies like enemies, if Trump doesn't change his trade policies things will get worse with our economy, not better.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
7.2.29  Bob Nelson  replied to  epistte @7.2.27    5 months ago

   jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Jack_TX
7.2.30  Jack_TX  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @7.2.23    5 months ago

Galen, there isn't any way to argue that the market is not up during the Trump presidency.  Look at your own chart. 

The numbers are what they are.  The S&P 500 was at 2271 on inauguration day and closed at 2708 today.   The Dow was at 19827 when Trump took office and closed at 25106 today.  The growth is even more pronounced when you track it back to election day.

But this is perfect example of the problem.  We have lots of people who absolutely can't stand Trump.  I'm not judging, BTW.  I'm personally not a fan. 

But lots of those people let their emotional feelings about Trump obscure the actual facts.  Like when they pretend that the stock market "hasn't really gone anywhere", when it's actually up over 20%.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
7.2.31  Jack_TX  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @7.2.28    5 months ago
You are either blind or, deliberately using Trump blinders to make your point.

No.  I'm afraid he's not the one with Trump blinders on.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
7.2.32  XDm9mm  replied to  Jack_TX @7.2.30    5 months ago

What the left continually refuses to accept is that during that Obama era of rising markets, the FED had near zero interest rates that helped buoy the markets, AND there was that thing called Quantitative Easing wherein the FED was essentially pumping 85 BILLION dollars a month into the system to again buoy the system and confidence in it by the people.

Looking at the chart it is actually quite evident when the QE was being reined in and then when the FED started to tinker with interest rates.   At the vertical axis between 2014 and 2015 the market essentially went horizontal with a few dips but basically treading water.  That coincides with the FED actions.

Then comes the major spike in 2016 which coincides with the election of Trump, and the promise of lower taxes and regulation roll backs.   

Of course there are other factors to be considered, but the preponderance of the evidence Galen presents with his own chart indicates that the market reacted to Trump very positively.  It got squirrely when he imposed tariffs, indicated by the first dip, and then came the news that China was in fact going through their own economic troubles which is now forcing them to actually negotiate.   Maybe they realize that they actually need us more than we need them.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
7.2.33  Nowhere Man  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @7.2.28    5 months ago
You are either blind or, deliberately using Trump blinders to make your point.

I'm blind?

Ok, if you say so....

BUT.....

I corrected the distortions of your chart..... the 2k delineation up the side are now the same height giving an accurate scale, and the year divisions along the bottom are now the same width giving an accurate time line....

original

Clearly, you can now see exactly what I was saying.... The market has performed twice as well from almost the instant that T-rump took office as compared against the entirety of Obama's administration....

Where did you get that chart? some liberal shill site? CNN? CBS? ABC? MSNBC? It was clearly deceptive.....

I submit it is you wearing the blinders to deliberately post such a distorted view of the facts....

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
7.2.34  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Jack_TX @7.2.30    5 months ago
The numbers are what they are.  The S&P 500 was at 2271 on inauguration day and closed at 2708 today.   The Dow was at 19827 when Trump took office and closed at 25106 today.  The growth is even more pronounced when you track it back to election day.

Yep, today the DOW hit 25k, last month it hit 25k and, a year ago it hit 25k, hmmmm, notice a pattern here yet? In the past year, the DOW has basically been stagnant, yes, it has gone up and, down but, it can't get very far past the 25k line before it drops to 23k, investors aren't confident in Trump anymore, they see what is going on and, it scares them. 

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
7.2.35  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Nowhere Man @7.2.33    5 months ago
Clearly, you can now see exactly what I was saying.... The market has performed twice as well from almost the instant that T-rump took office as compared against the entirety of Obama's administration....

Look at your own chart, actually, the chart I provided that you have darkened. Look at 2017 to 2018, the line hits 25K in January 2017, it does it again in November of 2017 and, it did it again today. Now, I don't know about you but, to me that suggests that it could not have hit 25k three times in a year unless it dropped below 25k at least twice in that year. During Obama's time in office yes, there were times the market dropped but, it immediately rose again and, continued to rise, there was a steady rise in the market over his eight years in office, Trump isn't seeing that happen during his two years, what he is seeing is, in the first year, the year that the Obama policies were still in effect the market continued to rise but, when Trumps policies were put in place the market stagnated.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
7.2.36  Nowhere Man  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @7.2.35    5 months ago

Now your changing the goal posts, your original claim......

Think about this, Trump boasted that the stock market hit 25k twice during his presidency, that means that it hit 25k and, then dropped which it did, we can look at the stock charts and, see that for ourselves, that means that the stock market since Trump took office hasn't really gone anywhere, under Obama the stock market did really well and, we can prove that with the same stock charts.

The corrected chart shows that to be a complete falsehood......

Your own chart... Now you want to claim something else based upon that chart that still doesn't make sense but is completely different than your original claim....

Who has the hate blinders on?

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.2.37  Texan1211  replied to  Nowhere Man @7.2.36    5 months ago

I think some people are just mad that Krugman's predictions on the economy under Trump have been so wrong.

When one of their heroes is proven wrong publicly, they must saddle up and defend his honor!

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
7.2.38  Nowhere Man  replied to  Texan1211 @7.2.37    5 months ago

When has Krugman NOT been wrong.....

It is said that even a broken clock is right at least twice a day, so what's Krugman's problem?

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.2.39  Texan1211  replied to  Nowhere Man @7.2.38    5 months ago

Krugman is the most celebrated economist in Democratic circle history.

Even if he is so wrong, or is it because he is so wrong?

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
7.2.40  Nowhere Man  replied to  Texan1211 @7.2.39    5 months ago

I would lay money on Because

 
 
 
Dulay
7.2.41  Dulay  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @7.2.15    5 months ago
And here we go..... scurrying off to our respective bunkers and lose the opportunity to converse.
It is true that the more painful the truth is to someone, the more likely it is to be ignored....disregarded?

BELIEF PERSEVERANCE

n. a psychological phenomenon in which there is a tendency to persist with one's held beliefs despite the fact that the information is inaccurate or that evidence shows otherwise. This contrary nature shows an unwillingness to admit that the initial premise may not be true.
BELIEF PERSEVERANCE: "Belief perseverance prompts a person to cling to previously-held beliefs even when there is new evidence pointing to the contrary."

https://psychologydictionary.org/belief-perseverance/

We see all too much of that here. 

Left/Right I don't care for the most part. What seems to keep us apart is the getting to the truths and facts we as individual are willing to accept as a basis for the conversation to even start. As we can't seem to agree with those, we then move on to villainize each other.

The first thing that ideologues need to do is admit that facts are non-partisan. Yes, question the source. Yes question the author. But if it holds up to scrutiny and there are multiple sources that support it, especially if they contain data and studies, it's probably true. 

There are a lot of good journalists/writers that base their articles on facts from multiple sources and they provide links for reference. It doesn't matter if they are conservative or liberal as long as they have integrity and ethics. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
7.2.42  Jack_TX  replied to  Texan1211 @7.2.39    5 months ago
Krugman is the most celebrated economist in Democratic circle history. Even if he is so wrong, or is it because he is so wrong?

It's because he is better at creating ridiculous rationalizations about why batshit liberal ideology supposedly isn't batshit.

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
7.2.43  Studiusbagus  replied to  Nowhere Man @7.2.9    5 months ago
. Profit is one motive, lying to cover ones ass is another, lying to preserve an ideal is also another.... and there are many many more..... No arguments there....

One other part, and although not a "fact" I have seen engineers get pressured by end users, contractors, and their own ego into disasterous conclusions. 

Again, many moons ago I was helping the developer that my wife worked for to develop a shopping center in Birmingham. The engineer disagreed with me and agreed with the contractor to blast the side of a hill rather than digging and using gabions. 

 The night after blasting we got a call with her orders to get the corporate checkbook and meet the jet to go to Birmingham because the other side of the mountain lost 9 apartment houses sliding down.

Engineer blamed the contractor, contractor blamed the engineer...I blamed them both.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
7.2.44  Nowhere Man  replied to  Dulay @7.2.41    5 months ago
The first thing that ideologues need to do is admit that facts are non-partisan.

Real facts absolutely are, no question..... What is anathema to real facts?

it's probably true. 

A real fact has no room for probably, or maybe's, if's, kinda's, etc. etc.........

A phoney fact?

I think T-rump is a dick, no matter how many people think like that, it doesn't mean he is.

A real fact?

Light has weight, scientifically proven, extrapolated yes, but scientific none the less.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
7.2.45  Jack_TX  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @7.2.34    5 months ago
Yep, today the DOW hit 25k, last month it hit 25k and, a year ago it hit 25k, hmmmm, notice a pattern here yet? In the past year, the DOW has basically been stagnant, yes, it has gone up and, down but, it can't get very far past the 25k line before it drops to 23k, investors aren't confident in Trump anymore, they see what is going on and, it scares them. 

Oh stop.  That's just a ridiculously over simplified conclusion. 

Did you blame Barack Obama when the market was flat in 2011 or 2015?  No?  Was it Clinton's fault when the market dropped 10%?  No? 

If Trump is responsible for the flat market, is he also responsible for the rally that preceeded it?  No?  

Just stop the nonsense.

 
 
 
tomwcraig
7.2.46  tomwcraig  replied to  Jack_TX @7.2.45    5 months ago

Things that affect the market:

1) The Fed and it's economic policies including interest rates

2) Trade policies including tariffs

3) Daytrading

4) Hedge Funds

5) Actions of businesses and in particular sectors of business

6) Profits

7) Return on Investment

8) Economies throughout the world not just the USA's economy

9) Government policies outside of international trade

All of these are just examples that I can think of off the top of my head and probably only scratch the surface of the entire complex system of all the things that affect the Stock Markets.  The big ones out of those examples are everything other than Daytrading.  When the Hedge Funds make moves, they have a ripple effect due to the shear volume of shares they either acquire or divest.  Daytrading is a small segment of the population that are trying to get rich quick through making bets on stocks on a daily basis and hoping to hit a massive rise to sell high while hoping for a massive fall to buy low throughout the day.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
7.2.47  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Jack_TX @7.2.45    5 months ago
Oh stop.  That's just a ridiculously over simplified conclusion. 

Is it? I don't think so and, neither do a lot of economists. Obama's policies were being killed by Trump almost as soon as he was sworn in, Trump started in 2017 talking about tariffs against nations that we did business with on a regular basis and, he started talking about killing NAFTA, all of which he did do. Just something else to consider is what tomwcraig says in the comment 7.2.46,

2) Trade policies including tariffs

8) Economies throughout the world not just the USA's economy

9) Government policies outside of international trade

Did you blame Barack Obama when the market was flat in 2011 or 2015?  No?  Was it Clinton's fault when the market dropped 10%?  No? 

No because I knew neither one was imposing tariffs on our allies.

If Trump is responsible for the flat market, is he also responsible for the rally that preceeded it?  No? 

Only in part, a lot of that were policies that were still in effect when Obama was in office, the rest was hope of the market investors that Trump was on their side and, knew what he was doing. That hope is now fading, just like the Obama policies.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
7.2.48  Nowhere Man  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @7.2.47    5 months ago

It took 35 quarters of the Obama era to make the market grow 10k points.

It took 5 quarters of the T-rump era to make the market grow 9.5 k points.

Simple question, Which era is better?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
7.2.49  Bob Nelson  replied to  Nowhere Man @7.2.48    5 months ago

What is the relevance of the stock market to most Americans?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
7.2.50  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Nowhere Man @7.2.48    5 months ago
Simple question, Which era is better?

unless in a hybrid zoo of fruit orbiting Space Station while stationary,

how is it,

U compare Apples to Orangutangs guzzlin Tang, while in spacecraft, headed to the moon "Alice" ?

.

I be leave you've left the impression you r knowledgeable of our past, losing a few hundred thousand jobs per month while the worlds entire economic balance had become UN, and turning the entire direction of the world economy around, (Granted, via means i did not agree with, such as following Bush's lead of b ailing out the too big to fail n jail corporations, but, i believe Obama did what he thought was best for All of US, unlike some others)

This produced a slow and steady growth that gave this "President", an easy foundation to continue growth.

Then throw in "Tax Cuts" named for the Middle Class my Ass, that gave corporations ridiculously new higher profits that don't end, while the crumbs to the middle class expire in a few years....

then, throw in his appointmeants to Not Benefit any said administration or cabinet with a perfect example of the antithesis of said department, along with science denial & oversight reduction of all oversighting, and $ signs spring to mind for those who don't give a fck about future mankind.

Reduced oversight, also known as blindness, leading the blind, increasing the poisoning of our Country via mining, "clean" coal technology (Thats pAthetically FUnny), the increase of emissions, the allowance of more poisons in our water, and water ways, all in concert with the poisoning of feeble little minds,

leads one to SEE, Y the blind follow the blindness, but,

for some, not speaking dumb, jest a tit tat with a toe knumb, cause no matter how you circle your X's,

can't U C, that those formerly married, are now divorced from more than just their X spouses and reality,

R just that.?,./

.

Two incomparable an apple to an Orangatang , irregardless of the size of ones pear, sounds like shrunken sour grapes, so i raisin the question that in order to

blind date, are melons important enough to carry the buckets of water

when things pail in comparison

to Albino Black Panthers ?

Ore

is it the FeMale irony,

of color dyslexia

gone positively negative...

Imagine the image you pool, is a reflection of ones self from the pool,

but, don't let em pool the wool over the sheepish red eyes, cause blinded, is the only way they like to drive

over US     hey Jorge, forget the tree, watchout for that

BUS 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
7.2.51  Nowhere Man  replied to  Bob Nelson @7.2.49    5 months ago
What is the relevance of the stock market to most Americans?

Ask GMR he thinks it's so relevant that he has to be right...... Obama's era was better in every way..... (except the one that counts, growth)

Of course, that has nothing to do with political slant.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
7.2.52  Bob Nelson  replied to  Nowhere Man @7.2.51    5 months ago
Ask GMR...

I try to make it a principle not to get involved in others' spats.

Obama's era was better in every way..... (except the one that counts, growth)

Actually... growth has been fairly constant since the end of the 2008 crisis. That wasn't Obama's doing, nor is it Trump's. The Fed runs the economy, for better or for worse.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
7.2.53  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Bob Nelson @7.2.52    5 months ago
That wasn't Obama's doing, nor is it Trump's. The Fed runs the economy, for better or for worse.

Psst,

please inform Trumpp

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
7.2.54  Bob Nelson  replied to  igknorantzrulz @7.2.53    5 months ago
inform Trumpp

In French: A l'impossible, nul n'est tenu!  :  No one may be required to accomplish the impossible.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
7.2.55  Jack_TX  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @7.2.47    5 months ago
Is it?

Absolutely.

I don't think so and, neither do a lot of economists.

Do find us an economist who denies "the Trump rally", or who states that the market "has gone nowhere" since his inauguration. 

Just something else to consider is what tomwcraig says in the comment 7.2.46, 2) Trade policies including tariffs

Yes.  And you'll notice Tom lists that as one of many factors.  He left off "taxation", BTW, but we'll assume that goes under "other govt policies".

But chief among all of those.... number one on Tom's list and correctly so... is "The Fed".  Pretending a $200billion tariff decision impacts the markets with similar effect as a $90 trillion interest rate decision is embarrassingly ridiculous.  

Only in part, a lot of that were policies that were still in effect when Obama was in office, the rest was hope of the market investors that Trump was on their side and, knew what he was doing. That hope is now fading, just like the Obama policies.

This is your emotion talking.  I sure hope you're not basing actual investment decisions on this.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
7.2.56  Jack_TX  replied to  Bob Nelson @7.2.49    5 months ago
What is the relevance of the stock market to most Americans?

It is the engine that allows all the shit they buy to come to market.

 
 
 
Ender
7.2.57  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @7.2.55    5 months ago
"has gone nowhere"

I will say that. Look at this chart in link. The market peaked in in 2017 and has basically 'gone nowhere'.

https://www.macrotrends.net/1358/dow-jones-industrial-average-last-10-years

 
 
 
Ender
7.2.58  Ender  replied to  Nowhere Man @7.2.48    5 months ago
Which era is better?

Obama's. trumps era is stagnant.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
7.2.59  Bob Nelson  replied to  Jack_TX @7.2.56    5 months ago
It is the engine that allows all the shit they buy to come to market.

Nope. Trucks do that.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
7.2.60  Nowhere Man  replied to  Jack_TX @7.2.55    5 months ago
I sure hope you're not basing actual investment decisions on this.

The insanity never ends does it?

I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that most commenting haven't one lick of experience investing, Stock market, or business....

Just from the way they talk about it.....

To listen to them, you would think they can't make a move unless a democrat politician in the government tells them what is what.....

35 quarters under the Obama admin the market increased 10k...... 5 quarters under the T-rump administration the market increased 9.5 k.

The market was almost 7 times faster in growth. Yes it has had a couple of sell offs which is normal, so the same happened several times under the Obama Administration.... Yet they casually ignore those.....

That deliberate ignorance is what tells me they haven't a clue, and their commentary is colored by politics first before any other knowledge. Sad, very sad.....

 
 
 
 
Nowhere Man
7.2.62  Nowhere Man  replied to  Ender @7.2.61    5 months ago

Yeah, political people like those kind of charts..... Makes them feel better....

Quote....

This interactive chart shows the running percentage gain in the Dow Jones Industrial Average by Presidential term. Each series begins in the month of inauguration and runs to the end of the term. The y-axis shows the total percentage increase or decrease in the DJIA and the x-axis shows the term length in months. Click any president name in the legend to add or remove graph lines. The current price of the Dow Jones Industrial Average as of February 2019 is25,106.33.

Typical worthless information..... Both lines start from zero so of course the 36 quarters Obama was president will result in a much higher ending as a percentage of where they started.....

Feed that crap to someone who doesn't know basic math.....

 
 
 
Ender
7.2.63  Ender  replied to  Nowhere Man @7.2.62    5 months ago

You may not like it but it shows what the market did during their terms.

It is fact whether you like the results or not.

Also, One can look at where trump is now compared to Obama at the same time in their terms.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
7.2.64  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Nowhere Man @7.2.62    5 months ago
Both lines start from zero so of course the 36 quarters Obama was president will result in a much higher ending as a percentage of where they started..... Feed that crap to someone who doesn't know basic math.....

Know your math, do ya?  How many years are 36 quarters? 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
7.2.65  Nowhere Man  replied to  Ender @7.2.63    5 months ago
Also, One can look at where trump is now compared to Obama at the same time in their terms.

And what difference does that make, but the truth is, it doesn't represent what you claim it to.....

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
7.2.66  Nowhere Man  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @7.2.64    5 months ago
How many years are 36 quarters?

Fine, nitpick the minor details, 32 quarters then.... Still doesn't change the actual fact does it......

 
 
 
Ender
7.2.67  Ender  replied to  Nowhere Man @7.2.65    5 months ago

Actually it proves exactly what I said.

Obama had a better stock market during his term when you compare the two at the same time in their presidency.

It also shows that for over the last year, during the trump presidency, it has been flat.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
7.2.68  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Nowhere Man @7.2.48    5 months ago
It took 5 quarters of the T-rump era to make the market grow 9.5 k points. Simple question, Which era is better?

And, it has been stagnant since January 2018.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
7.2.69  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Jack_TX @7.2.55    5 months ago
This is your emotion talking.  I sure hope you're not basing actual investment decisions on this.

I haven't invested since 2004 when I bought bulk gold bars at 400 an ounce and, later sold them at a profit. I advised my friends to do the same and, to sell all their stocks before the 2007 crash of the market and, then advised them to buy into the stock market in 2009 while it was still low, I've been advising them to sell every time it hits 25k since that is the most the "balloon" can stomach. We will see the start of the collapse of the economy this year and, it will only get worse, for the workers, as we go into 2020, the rich will continue to get their tax breaks while we the workers will pay for it with an increase in taxes owed.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
7.2.70  Jack_TX  replied to  Bob Nelson @7.2.59    5 months ago
Nope. Trucks do that.

You're to the silly one-liners already.

Capitulating early on this one, I see.  Probably just as well. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
7.2.71  Jack_TX  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @7.2.69    5 months ago
We will see the start of the collapse of the economy this year

We are overdue for a recession.  It's unlikely we'll see anything like 2008, because the financial system is much stronger.  Calling a recession a "collapse" is as partisanly idiotic as calling the last 2 years "the greatest market in history".    

and, it will only get worse, for the workers, as we go into 2020, the rich will continue to get their tax breaks while we the workers will pay for it with an increase in taxes owed.

How....exactly ....will working class Americans owe more taxes on lower tax brackets and rates?  Oh...that's right....they would have to be making more money. 

So which is it?  Will the economy collapse or will workers pay more taxes?  Or will you admit this is really just about your emotions?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
7.2.72  Bob Nelson  replied to  Jack_TX @7.2.70    5 months ago

You do know, Jack, that 90% of stock market activity is just churn?

It has very little to do with getting stuff to market. Trucks do a lot more.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
7.2.73  Jack_TX  replied to  Bob Nelson @7.2.72    5 months ago
You do know, Jack, that 90% of stock market activity is just churn?

Do give us a link on that, Bob.

It has very little to do with getting stuff to market. Trucks do a lot more.

I'm sure you think so.  

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
7.2.74  Bob Nelson  replied to  Jack_TX @7.2.73    5 months ago
Do give us a link on that, Bob.

Google is your friend, Jack...

 
 
 
Jack_TX
7.2.75  Jack_TX  replied to  Bob Nelson @7.2.74    5 months ago
Google is your friend, Jack...

Well I doubt it will be yours.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
7.2.76  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Jack_TX @7.2.71    5 months ago
So which is it?  Will the economy collapse or will workers pay more taxes?

Both, starting this year. Regular people will start paying taxes when their returns come in because, that "tax break" they got started ending this year, the tax cuts for the rich will continue well past 2021. We will start into a recession by the end of this year and, it will continue through next year to get worse. IMO.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
7.2.77  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Nowhere Man @7.2.66    4 months ago

[Removed]

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
7.2.78  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Nowhere Man @7.2.2    4 months ago
Simple apply your logic to all the different scientists on the gun issue.... there are lots of liberal scientists that do studies based upon incomplete information, yet still give opinions they claim are based upon fact.... there are other scientists that do the same that agree with the conservative side..

Translations: "When science tells me things I don't like to hear, I ignore or attack it. Then I look for some political hack that agrees with me and I swallow everything he or she says--whole. " 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
7.2.79  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Jack_TX @7.2.30    4 months ago

And the Dow is up 650 points more in the last week since....

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
7.2.80  Studiusbagus  replied to  Jack_TX @7.2.71    4 months ago
How....exactly ....will working class Americans owe more taxes on lower tax brackets and rates?  Oh...that's right....they would have to be making more money. 

I may be wrong but wasn't you that told me you advise banks?

Here's exactly how that can happen.

An employee of a company is a commissioned sales rep. 

They hop in their car every day and drive 90,000 miles a year, taking clients to lunch, etc. The company does not pay for the expenses opting to pay higher commissions instead.

The employee writes off $30,000 in travel and $5200/yr. For entertainment expenses. The rep earns $130-150,000 per year in commissions. The company offers him a position in a territory 1500 miles away.

Except this year he can't write off the miles, entertainment or moving expenses.

Now, he's paying taxes on $150,000 income instead of $104,000. Which is roughly $9500 more paid out to the IRS this year over last year.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
7.2.81  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Studiusbagus @7.2.80    4 months ago
Except this year he can't write off the miles,

fake news... the mileage deductions are still there... and bigger than last year.

https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-issues-standard-mileage-rates-for-2019

  • 58 cents per mile driven for business use, up 3.5 cents from the rate for 2018,
     
  • 20 cents per mile driven for medical or moving purposes, up 2 cents from the rate for 2018, and
     
  • 14 cents per mile driven in service of charitable organizations.

fact checking is a must :)

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
7.2.82  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Bob Nelson @7.2.49    4 months ago

A lot.  Well over half of all Americans are invested in it.  Many of us are wholly dependent upon its well being for our retirement savings, our heath and education accounts savings, savings for long term goals, own REIT funds because we can’t afford a second or more properties, and with interest rates so low in rainy day funds as well though those are in income corporate bond and dividend stock income funds.  I’m on the edge of the working and middle class and my whole economic future well being is directly tied to the well being of corporate America and the stock market.  I’d trust that before government any time every time.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
7.2.83  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Bob Nelson @7.2.74    4 months ago

Do you own an ETF of Trucking and or railroad companies?  They do exist.  

 
 
 
XDm9mm
7.2.84  XDm9mm  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @7.2.82    4 months ago
A lot.  Well over half of all Americans are invested in it.

I will submit even more than that.   

You looked at the individual investors, but neglected the HUGE investments by public and municipal unions and public and private pension funds.  Then of course the 'cross pollination' so to speak of major corporations that hold major investments in other companies.

But, who cares about a robust stock market when socialism rears it's UGLY head.

 
 
 
Split Personality
7.2.85  Split Personality  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @7.2.82    4 months ago
Stock value vs. stock reach

The data in the graph comes from a paper published in November 2017 by New York University professor Edward N. Wolff.

One of the paper’s findings was that "despite the fact that almost half of all households owned stock shares either directly or indirectly through mutual funds, trusts, or various pension accounts, the richest 10 percent of households controlled 84 percent of the total value of these stocks in 2016."

This line by Wolff presents a key contrast that Khanna’s post glosses over: While about half of households own stocks in one way or another, the richest Americans hold the lion’s share of the value.

https://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2018/sep/18/ro-khanna/what-percentage-americans-own-stocks/

Participation through all possibilities is currently thought to be 54%

https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-americans-dow-22000-investing-20170803-story.html

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
7.2.86  Studiusbagus  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @7.2.81    4 months ago

Let's see......I was talking about unreimbursed employee expenses....Wait!  What's this???  From your own link even....

It is important to note that under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, taxpayers cannot claim a miscellaneous itemized deduction for unreimbursed employee travel expenses. Taxpayers also cannot claim a deduction for moving expenses, except members of the Armed Forces on active duty moving under orders to a permanent change of station. 
 
 
 
Studiusbagus
7.2.87  Studiusbagus  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @7.2.81    4 months ago
However, § 11045 of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Public Law 115-
97, 131. Stat. 2054 (December 22, 2017) (the “Act”) suspends all miscellaneous
itemized deductions that are subject to the two-percent of adjusted gross income floor
under § 67, including unreimbursed employee travel expenses, for taxable years
beginning after December 31, 2017, and before January 1, 2026. Thus, the business
standard mileage rate provided in this notice cannot be used to claim an itemized
deduction for unreimbursed employee travel expenses during the suspension.
Notwithstanding the foregoing suspension of miscellaneous itemized deductions,
deductions for expenses that are deductible in determining adjusted gross income are
not suspended.
 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
7.2.88  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Studiusbagus @7.2.86    4 months ago
Let's see......I was talking about unreimbursed employee expenses.

sorry but you said...

Except this year he can't write off the miles, 

when in fact, yes they can write off those miles.

obviously, I did not question unreimbursed expenses... I was only speaking about mileage.

yes, you were right about unreimbursed expenses and yes, you were wrong about not being able to write off mileage.

just say thank you for clearing that up and move on.

cheers :)

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
8  Buzz of the Orient    5 months ago

The answer is simple. Don't believe anything you read or hear or see other than only half of what you actually see "live".  Has anyone seen the movie "The Illusionist"?

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
8.1  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @8    5 months ago
The answer is simple. Don't believe anything you read or hear or see other than only half of what you actually see "live".  Has anyone seen the movie "The Illusionist"?

I have, excellent exercise in fooling the mind, another good one is "Now you see Me".

 
 
 
JohnRussell
9  JohnRussell    5 months ago

We elected a man who already had a reputation as a serial liar long before the election. Clearly a sizable part of the public doesn't care about the truth or the facts.

The president's reported favorite television show , Fox and Friends, a show on which he has been a guest many times, has a long history of reporting erroneous 'facts'.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
9.1  Dean Moriarty  replied to  JohnRussell @9    5 months ago

I'll bet there is no fact checking on that claim that his favorite show is Fox and Friends. The people that make these erroneous claims never back them up with fact. 

 
 
 
katrix
9.1.1  katrix  replied to  Dean Moriarty @9.1    5 months ago

That claim is pretty obvious based on what he tweets.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
9.1.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  katrix @9.1.1    5 months ago
hat claim is pretty obvious based on what he tweets

also, a little bird told me

it is true.

Half of his "ideas" come from FOX "news"

the other half

Planet Putin         to his mind

 
 
 
WallyW
9.1.3  WallyW  replied to  igknorantzrulz @9.1.2    5 months ago

All opinion, no facts were injured in the course of this comment.

All hat, no cattle.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
9.1.4  igknorantzrulz  replied to  WallyW @9.1.3    5 months ago

I have a leather hat

made from cattle 

calling

out cat calls , cause F TRump can grab em, I can blab em whatever it be   asz TRump has changed  the rules pertaining to Truth, n not just an opine, I. Produced  from  a tree. Son 

ain’t gonna shine  your shoes, but it will provide energy for your opine to grow.....

 
 
 
 
epistte
9.1.6  epistte  replied to  Dulay @9.1.5    5 months ago

That's embarrassing.

 
 
 
Dulay
9.1.7  Dulay  replied to  epistte @9.1.6    5 months ago

It's Trump. 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
9.1.8  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Dulay @9.1.7    5 months ago
It's Trump.

now THAT'S

Embarrassing !  

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
9.1.9  Studiusbagus  replied to  WallyW @9.1.3    4 months ago
no facts were injured in the course of this comment.

When you start using them it would be a shock...

 
 
 
Jack_TX
9.2  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @9    5 months ago
We elected a man who already had a reputation as a serial liar long before the election.

Yes.  

Clearly a sizable part of the public doesn't care about the truth or the facts.

Yes.  About 90%, apparently.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
10  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו    5 months ago
I think a lot of it comes from opinions and exaggeration and distorting the truth. 

This earns, yet again a jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif.  Some people just have a knack for continually stating the obvious as if it were a newly revealed truth just to them. 

 
 
 
luther28
11  luther28    4 months ago

"Don't urinate on me and tell me it's raining.....!"

Kind of similar to trickle down economics, is it not?

 
 
 
Enoch
11.1  Enoch  replied to  luther28 @11    4 months ago

Good one!

E.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
11.2  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  luther28 @11    4 months ago

It relates well to much that is going on in our political system, and has been for decades.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
11.2.1  XXJefferson#51  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @11.2    4 months ago

Supply side economics is the only true path to real economic growth and wealth accumulation across the board.  A rising tide lifts all boats.  

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
11.2.2  Studiusbagus  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @11.2.1    4 months ago
Supply side economics is the only true path to real economic growth and wealth

It has failed every time. Not once has sse ever worked.

 
 
 
MUVA
11.2.3  MUVA  replied to  Studiusbagus @11.2.2    4 months ago

You have to work hard the money doesn't just trickle down.It has worked for my family for over 80 years.

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
11.2.4  Studiusbagus  replied to  MUVA @11.2.3    4 months ago
You have to work hard the money doesn't just trickle down.It has worked for my family for over 80 years

What the fuck does your wife's family business to do with a Republican policy that hasn't worked each time it's implemented?

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
11.2.5  Studiusbagus  replied to  MUVA @11.2.3    4 months ago
You have to work hard the money doesn't just trickle down.It has worked for my family for over 80 years

And besides, who do you think you're trying to teach about starting and growing a business? 

You weren't around for the actual "hard work" OVER 80 years ago to make the leap of self confidence and determination. Please stop trying to bullshit me about your business prowess. I had my ass handed to me as a rookie long before you came out of your pampers. 

 
 
 
MUVA
11.2.6  MUVA  replied to  Studiusbagus @11.2.5    4 months ago

Started three NEW  businesses since taking over the family firm a tug repair business ,a media blast company, and I cut grass on the side/s 

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
11.2.7  Studiusbagus  replied to  MUVA @11.2.6    4 months ago

Uh huh......

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
11.2.8  Studiusbagus  replied to  MUVA @11.2.6    4 months ago
Started three NEW  businesses since taking over the family firm a tug repair business ,a media blast company, and I cut grass on the side/s 

Sure you did! 

 You're going to tell me that afterall owning a marine sales and service company you started two other businesses that are marine related and jumped through all the regulatory and licensing as well as outrageous insurance platforms instead of just offering the services under the existing license and insurance. 

Yeah, that makes sense....the only part of that comment that may even be believable is you cutting lawns on the side.

Knows nothing of taxes, accounting, regulatory, insurance....but claims to have started and operating two seperate entities.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
13  Buzz of the Orient    4 months ago

It sure is hard to believe - 331 comments all about a situation where there isn't a person or an organization in the world that is honest and unbiased enough to even check the fact checking organizations and only a fool would even think that the fact checking organizations are honest and unbiased.

As I said above, don't believe anything you read or hear and only half of what you see with your own eyes.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
13.1  seeder  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @13    4 months ago

Objectivity...... How do you teach it/maintain it....whatever.

I may put together a seed on it as a follow up to this one.

Hope you're doing well Buzz....

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
13.1.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @13.1    4 months ago
"I may put together a seed on it as a follow up to this one."

If YOU write it, it's an article, not a seed, and I would look forward to it if you do.  There's a definite lack of objectivity to be exposed IMO.

I'm doing fine, thanks, and hope you and yours are okay as well. As long as I've got my movies, my camera and my photo editing program I'm happy.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
13.1.2  Nowhere Man  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @13.1.1    4 months ago
There's a definite lack of objectivity to be exposed IMO.

And this article has helped to accentuate and amplify it by some in my opinion....

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
JBB
Jack_TX
zuksam
Jim of the Great Northwoods
PJ
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
GregTx


98 visitors