2016 Election

Quote: HowMany

Don't waste your time with the thermostat. It's too late.

On Jan 25, 2006 Al Gore said we have 10 years to save the planet. And we blew it.

Though I suspect you mean to be sarcastic, there's some evidence that it's true. We passed a point a couple years ago (and I DON'T understand climatology so I'm not speaking as any kind of expert) where the particulate content of the atmosphere exceeded an amount that is past sustainability, and the planet will be uninhabitable within 50 years or so. We had to cut short of that point, and we didn't get there.

And, no, I can't cite the sources; I'm not sure where that report came from. Maybe someone else on here does know what I'm referring to.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

EvenBob: Reagan never entered the oval office dressed in anything but a jacket and tie, out of respect for the job. [Note the “never”.]

rxwine: (provides photographic evidence to the contrary)

EvenBob: On weekends Reagan did appear casually sometimes.

——————————————————————————

I don’t know whether it’s more hilarious or sad how some people won’t admit they were wrong even when the evidence is overwhelming.

When I saw the pictures, somehow I knew that wouldn’t be enough to elicit an admission of error.

What’s funny is that somehow EvenBob thinks that defending his error somehow saves face, rather than the actual result of making him look even worse.

Not to mention EB said he wasn't gonna post in this thread anymore.

Then without any explination he reappears and ignores several posts of people asking him why he returned.

I guess he just can't quit us.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Though I suspect you mean to be sarcastic, there's some evidence that it's true. We passed a point a couple years ago (and I DON'T understand climatology so I'm not speaking as any kind of expert) where the particulate content of the atmosphere exceeded an amount that is past sustainability, and the planet will be uninhabitable within 50 years or so. We had to cut short of that point, and we didn't get there.

And, no, I can't cite the sources; I'm not sure where that report came from. Maybe someone else on here does know what I'm referring to.

A quick Google search shows all kinds of gloom and doom for the climate; some say there is a 5% chance the earth is uninhabitable by 2100; others say areas may be such in just 50 years (Australia is mentioned in one). I didn't do much actual research, just got a bunch of pages of Google hits.

The problem with the politics of global doom is that we aren't really interested in doing something that will have a huge impact on our economy--we could implement the best technology and fuels for reducing pollution available and improve them as better are developed--when China and other countries will out-pollute us no matter what we do while we are spending everything to save only a small part of the Earth.

I don't really believe the "science" is as good as it is sold to be and I do believe that Gore and others profited from telling us to do nothing that pollutes while flying around on private jets, so it isn't exactly like they sold us on their commitment to the cause. I do believe we can, and should, pollute less but not at the expense of our economy. We need to be smart about how we do things.

It is funny how it was a huge issue a few years ago, but I haven't heard a candidate mention it this cycle. Interesting.

I find it interesting too. For one thing, when confronted with an ugly and perhaps inescapable threat like this, the human denial mechanism kicks in. This is something that evolved to promote our survival, but it looks like it will ultimately be our undoing. Even if it turns out all the scientists are wrong about climate change, which is certainly possible, we know that we won't listen to the best information if the news is bad.

It's a fair point about China and company as well. And they have a reasonable point in saying, "so you guys get to industrialize and then when it is our turn, nobody new is allowed to?" But then, what if the science is right? We just destroy ourselves to be fair to everyone?

Sort of funny to think we're arguing about Trump's rudeness during the last 50-100 years heading into a global catastrophe.

Quote: RonC

It is funny how it was a huge issue a few years ago, but I haven't heard a candidate mention it this cycle. Interesting.

The disappearance of climate change as an issue in all the campaigns is disturbingly curious in view of the fact that the incumbent president has quite a few times called it more of a threat to us than anything else like terrorism domestic or imported.

That's obviously true. Terrorism isn't much of a threat to you at all. Even in 2001, it was way down on the list of stuff that might kill you. If there's a 20% chance that the scientists who study the subject of climate change are right, that's a huge threat.

Quote: Rigondeaux

That's obviously true. Terrorism isn't much of a threat to you at all. Even in 2001, it was way down on the list of stuff that might kill you. If there's a 20% chance that the scientists who study the subject of climate change are right, that's a huge threat.

Terrorism isn't a threat from the fear of death itself; the resulting fear of doing things from deaths caused by terrorism is the issue. There may be much larger threats of death out there but fear immobilizes people and hurts the economy as people decide to avoid places because something "could" happen. Irrational to allow fear to do that, of course, but real nonetheless.

The climate change folks may have caused us to ignore them because promoters like Gore profiteering from the possibility instead of showing us how it is a problem, even in years where the climate seems colder, and helping figure out reasonable to fight the issue. Gore did the cause no good. I don't know if the science is good or not, what the chances are of it being good, etc. They made it too easy to ignore by telling us the sky was falling as they arrived at conferences in private jets.

Quote: Rigondeaux

Terrorism isn't much of a threat to you at all.

Obviously posted by someone not in the New York or Washington regions. Not to mention Boston, San Bernadino or Fort Hood.

Quote: Rigondeaux

That's obviously true. Terrorism isn't much of a threat to you at all. Even in 2001, it was way down on the list of stuff that might kill you. If there's a 20% chance that the scientists who study the subject of climate change are right, that's a huge threat.

Quote: SanchoPanza

Obviously posted by someone not in the New York or Washington regions. Not to mention Boston, San Bernadino or Fort Hood.

This is a vegas board. Looking strictly at odds, even if you live in NYC or Wash DC, Boston ect, the odds are extremely slim of dying from a terrorist. The odds are just so so tiny, shouldn't even think about it

Quote: SanchoPanza

The disappearance of climate change as an issue in all the campaigns is disturbingly curious in view of the fact that the incumbent president has quite a few times called it more of a threat to us than anything else like terrorism domestic or imported.

well duh
This cycle is not been about any issues discussed in past campaigns
This is 2016, the twilight zone compared to campaigns in the past
This cycles issue is
TRUMP
Its all about Trump baby
Obamacare, gay marriage, economy, terrorism, immigration, climate change ect
all minor issues in 2016 compared to the Trump issue
Do you support him. are you against. Is he really a republican. Trump vs Kelly, Trump vs Fox, Trump vs National Review ect
These are the issues
I personally hope the pollsters blow it, I want to see Trump either dominate 60% or tank 20%

All this looking at Iowa is a waste, republican nomination losers Huck and Santorum won Iowa the last 2 cycles

Quote: SanchoPanza

The disappearance of climate change as an issue in all the campaigns is disturbingly curious in view of the fact that the incumbent president has quite a few times called it more of a threat to us than anything else like terrorism domestic or imported.

It's still a threat in slow motion. Like a few rumbles from a volcano, most people just want to kick back and relax still. Nothing hard to understand why it's hard to get people interested.

Whereas a singe terrorist gets everyone's attention in the here and now.

Campaigns have to generate interest right this moment, but it's still an issue addressed in the platforms.

Quote: beachbumbabs

If Megyn Kelly has devastating Trump video, it will get shown. Last night wasn't the last chance for that confrontation.
.

And she better hope they is no video or pictures of her out there because I could see him making sure they got out. Hey, it has happened before.

(I fixed the quote code error, no content change. bbb)

Quote: Boz

Quote: beachbumbabs

If Megyn Kelly has devastating Trump video, it will get shown. Last night wasn't the last chance for that confrontation.
.

And she better hope they is no video or pictures of her out there because I could see him making sure they got out. Hey, it has happened before.

That Krystal Ball lady had her career ruined by just a few pictures at a Christmas party. And by working at MSNBC didn't help her career but the pics killed it.

Quote: terapined

This is a vegas board. Looking strictly at odds, even if you live in NYC or Wash DC, Boston ect, the odds are extremely slim of dying from a terrorist. The odds are just so so tiny, shouldn't even think about it

Indeed. Boston? What was that, two deaths?

When I think about the way we, and maybe Americans in particular, evaluate risk this image always comes to mind.



It's a fair point that the panic surrounding a terrorist attack means it has more of an impact than the deaths and injuries alone. But the media and politicians of both parties magnify that panic so they can use it to their own interests.

Not a huge Obama fan, but I'd commend him for trying to put things in perspective a bit, for once. Any candidate who said, "look, terrorism is terrible but you're much more likely to be killed by salmonella" would impress me.

Found an interesting article. We spend 50,000x more per victim of terrorism than any other cause of death. Obviously, there's a lot of subjectivity to that number. The article is snarky But there's some interesting evolutionary psychology discussion.

"More than 99% of that evolution has been characterized by starvation and general scarcity of resources typified the environment in which humans evolved. In this situation, violent acquisition of resources from other groups was often a necessary survival technique. Hence, human brains most hyper-vigilant and aggressive toward human threats (i.e. terrorists) were most likely to survive and propagate these characteristics.

On the other hand, throughout evolutionary history medical science was almost non-existent. Hence, there would be no survival value added by a tendency to focus on more likely health-related causes of death. We just weren’t designed for these times."

http://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/anti-terrorism-spending-disproportionate-to-threat/

Quote: Rigondeaux

Indeed. Boston? What was that, two deaths?

And how many has climate change killed in Boston? Not to mention injured. Not to mention the instilling of fear in everyday citizens.

Quote: Rigondeaux

It's a fair point that the panic surrounding a terrorist attack means it has more of an impact than the deaths and injuries alone. But the media and politicians of both parties magnify that panic so they can use it to their own interests./

At least politicians, to some degree, are held accountable for their actions. The media? I don't see it. I think that a prerequisite to having a job in the media is to be a drama queen. And they are not held accountable for erroneous, or poor, reporting. The media constantly calls for the jobs of people for a huge variety of reasons. Some good reasons and some bad reasons. Yet media members go unscathed when they screw up. Should they not be held accountable? If a particular media outlet, or person constantly heightens anxiety and is wrong most of the time, shouldn't they be gone? Why does the public stand for this nonsense?

Someone needs to establish an outlet that provides just the facts. No color. No opinion. It'll probably be very boring, but I think that I would prefer that over what we experience now.

Sorry.....now back to the regularly scheduled political discussion.

Wait. One more thing. Has www.straightpoop been taken? I may have to start one. Scared to google it because of what might be returned In that search.............

I went to a bar maybe 20 years ago to watch a Bills MNF game. Local popular wing joint. Only a few tables taken. Local news crew shows up to do a 'story' on rabid Bills fans and how excited everyone is locally that Bills are playing on MNF. Reporter and camera crew look around and are clearly disappointed in dismal turnout. They ask us all to sit at the same table closest to the biggest TV, and they position camera to only see us and the TV When the Bills scored and we cheered and high fived, they filmed that and left. Watching the 'report' made it seem like a full bar loaded with people.
If it was a real journalist, she would have reported the facts, that there were very few fans out at the bar, and perhaps tried to figure out why. But that was not her goal. She came out with a story to tell, and who cares if the facts did not back it up.
From that moment on I always remember that the newscaster sees him/herself as more important than the actual news. Megyn Kelly is just another example.

Hard to say. Maybe zero. Point is, we know pretty well how much of a threat terrorism is and it's not much of one. Climate change could be the end of the world as we know it, or it could just be a global catastrophe, or it could just be a set of severe problems, all of which would make it a bigger threat than terrorism.

What will happen if the drought in the Western US is permanent? What if it turns into the worst drought in 1,000 years, as some predict?

"The chances of a 35-year or longer "megadrought" striking the Southwest and central Great Plains by 2100 are above 80 percent if the world stays on its current trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions, scientists from NASA, Columbia University, and Cornell University report in a study published Thursday in the new open-access journal Science Advances."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/02/150212-megadrought-southwest-water-climate-environment/

What will happen if mosquitoes, and the illnesses they carry spread to more countries?
Zika virus: Brazil losing battle against Aedes aegypti mosquito, President Dilma Rousseff warns
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-30/brazil-losing-battle-against-zika-virus-mosquito-president-says/7126598

What will happen to global political stability if these issues and many others reach crisis levels? Those are some relatively mild problems.

Handicap it however you want. If there's a 5% chance this stuff is legit, which is ridiculously low, it's a bigger threat than some random nutjob setting off a bomb occasionally. At least until nukes become easier, and probably even then.

And, again, who is using terrorism to instill fear in everyday citizens? How much more serious a threat are shark attacks because of Jaws.

Quote: SOOPOO

I went to a bar maybe 20 years ago to watch a Bills MNF game. Local popular wing joint. Only a few tables taken. Local news crew shows up to do a 'story' on rabid Bills fans and how excited everyone is locally that Bills are playing on MNF. Reporter and camera crew look around and are clearly disappointed in dismal turnout. They ask us all to sit at the same table closest to the biggest TV, and they position camera to only see us and the TV When the Bills scored and we cheered and high fived, they filmed that and left. Watching the 'report' made it seem like a full bar loaded with people.
If it was a real journalist, she would have reported the facts, that there were very few fans out at the bar, and perhaps tried to figure out why. But that was not her goal. She came out with a story to tell, and who cares if the facts did not back it up.
From that moment on I always remember that the newscaster sees him/herself as more important than the actual news. Megyn Kelly is just another example.

Great illustration of the problem.

Need help..... Does each state get a proportional number of delegates to their population, or proportional to the registered voters of the party?

I ask this because if a Republican candidate gets all of NY and California and Massachusetts for example, what good is that support in the general election? I'd want the Republican who is well thought of in Florida, Ohio, etc....

Trump went to NH yesterday and then home
to NYC for the night. Switching back and forth
between CNN, FOX, and MSNBC, you'd think
Trump had sinned against god. Why did he
desert IA 3 days before the election? It shows
a huge lack of respect for IA voters! they were
all saying. Yet here he is today, as planned, back
in IA on the stump. Not word from the networks
on how he 'deserted' yesterday.

Bill Clinton has a wobbly voice and shaking hands,
and hardly anybody is reporting it. Him and Trump
are exactly the same age, what a difference in
energy level. Trump looks unstoppable, Clinton
looks like he's ready for a rocking chair in Little Rock.

Quote: EvenBob

I wasn't wrong, I only had part of the information.
I didn't know it only applied during work hours...

Okay, so your excuse is essentially "I wasn't wrong because I had no idea that what I was spouting was actually pure bullshit."

That doesn't fly. A false statement is wrong whether you're ignorant about its falsity or not.

You said that "Reagan never entered the oval office dressed in anything but a jacket and tie."

*Because that's not a true statement*, that means you were wrong. That's the DEFINITION of being wrong.

BTW, I told my wife that you would try to change the subject when you made your reply. You really have no idea how predictable you are.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Okay, so your excuse is essentially "I wasn't wrong because I had no idea that what I was spouting was actually pure bullshit."

Now it sounds like you're talking about Global Warming.....

Global warming predictions proven wrong 97.4% of the time

Trump is really harping on the Canada thing
today. I didn't know that Cruz was still a
citizen of Canada 15 months ago. Trump
might be right that it might be a problem.
I knew Cruz was born there, but not that
he was a citizen. This has got to put doubts
in some voters minds.

Quote: HowMany

Now it sounds like you're talking about Global Warming.....

Global warming predictions proven wrong 97.4% of the time

I'd ask you to post *actual* scientifically-accepted predictions that have been *actually* proven wrong, but from what I've seen, the standard for reality on this board is pretty low.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

That doesn't fly. .

Who cares. Settle down, don't have a coronary
over something I wrote.

Quote: HowMany

Global warming predictions proven wrong 97.4% of the time

Which is coincidentally the standard healthy body temperature. What are the odds?

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Okay, so your excuse is essentially....

Where were you for EB's sure-thing predictions for the Obama/Romney election?

Quote: Wizard

Where were you for EB's sure-thing predictions for the Obama/Romney election?

He was bicycling around putting 'The World
is Ending' global warming flyers on parked
cars. The flyers used recycled paper of course.

Quote: EvenBob

Trump is really harping on the Canada thing
today. I didn't know that Cruz was still a
citizen of Canada 15 months ago. Trump
might be right that it might be a problem.
I knew Cruz was born there, but not that
he was a citizen. This has got to put doubts
in some voters minds.

It figures Trump wants to make hay on the whole "birther" thing;
he was one of the last to stop pursuing it in the case of the President.
He wasn't the first to join the movement,
his position is that Hillary was in ahead of him.
He tries to say that he fears Cruz getting disqualified after nomination,
but I don't really see much to that possibility.
He also may not get as much of a push from it as he would like
since the birther thing has long been played out.

Quote: SOOPOO

Need help..... Does each state get a proportional number of delegates to their population, or proportional to the registered voters of the party?

I ask this because if a Republican candidate gets all of NY and California and Massachusetts for example, what good is that support in the general election? I'd want the Republican who is well thought of in Florida, Ohio, etc....

Republicans, or Democrats?

Here are the "quick versions:"

Republicans - each state gets 13, plus 3 per congressional district, plus (4 1/2 + 60% of its electoral votes) if it went for Romney in 2008, plus "bonus delegates" for having Republican Senators, a Republican Governor, most of its Representatives as Republicans, or Republicans controlling at least one house of the state's legislature in the past four years (six for Senators)

Democrats - not counting the "superdelegates", they are in proportion to ( (the fraction of (the total popular vote for Kerry in 2004 + for Obama in 2008 + for Obama in 2012) that came from that state) x 3 + the number of electoral votes from the state for Obama in 2012 / 538)

Quote: ThatDonGuy

Republicans, or Democrats?

Here are the "quick versions:"

Republicans - each state gets 13, plus 3 per congressional district, plus (4 1/2 + 60% of its electoral votes) if it went for Romney in 2008, plus "bonus delegates" for having Republican Senators, a Republican Governor, most of its Representatives as Republicans, or Republicans controlling at least one house of the state's legislature in the past four years (six for Senators)

Democrats - not counting the "superdelegates", they are in proportion to ( (the fraction of (the total popular vote for Kerry in 2004 + for Obama in 2008 + for Obama in 2012) that came from that state) x 3 + the number of electoral votes from the state for Obama in 2012 / 538)

Great info
Another thing to factor in is caucus or primary state
A lot of states are caucus states whose rules tend to limit participation.
Who wants to devote hours to the process starting at a certain time(caucus) as opposed to a quick vote in a primary any time during the day.
Caucus states for republicans are IA NV AK CO MN ND WY KS KY ME HI ND
Caucus states tend lean towards more extreme candidates in both parties due only hard core voters are willing to devote hours to the process.

Nate Silver has Trump winning every primary
that's coming up where there is enough recent
polling. 3 months ago he said Trump had zero
chance of winning any. He called him things
like 'Sideshow Don' and said he had a 5% chance
of winning anything. It's only been recently
that he's changed his tune.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/texas-republican/

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/01/nate_silver_said_donald_trump_had_no_shot_where_did_he_go_wrong.html

I don't blame people for underestimating Trump early in the political race.. I will blame those who keep doing it though.

Quote: terapined

Great info
Another thing to factor in is caucus or primary state
A lot of states are caucus states whose rules tend to limit participation.
Who wants to devote hours to the process starting at a certain time(caucus) as opposed to a quick vote in a primary any time during the day.
Caucus states for republicans are IA NV AK CO MN ND WY KS KY ME HI ND
Caucus states tend lean towards more extreme candidates in both parties due only hard core voters are willing to devote hours to the process.

I am under the impression that Republican "Caucus" states are now effectively primary states, as they begin with a secret ballot, and the state's national convention delegates are divided proportionally to the candidates based on the statewide vote totals - this is definitely the case in Iowa, Nevada, and Hawaii. In fact, if I read The Green Papers right, the only three states that still use "traditional" caucus procedures to select national convention delegates are Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

I'd ask you to post *actual* scientifically-accepted predictions that have been *actually* proven wrong, but from what I've seen, the standard for reality on this board is pretty low.

Actually there is more than abundance of them available. It might help to construct a strong search request.

http://www.lowerwolfjaw.com/agw/quotes.htm

http://www.globalclimatescam.com/category/failed-predictions/

http://www.c3headlines.com/predictionsforecasts/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/02/the-big-list-of-failed-climate-predictions/

Here are just several from the veritable multitude of ludicrous examples:

“Like the UN, the Pentagon commissioned a report on “climate change” that also offered some highly alarming visions of the future under “global warming.” The 2003 document, entitled “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security,” was widely cited by global-warming theorists, bureaucrats, and the establishment press as evidence that humanity was facing certain doom. It also served as the foundation for the claim that alleged man-made “climate change” was actually a “national security concern.” However, fortunately for the taxpayers forced to pay for the study, the Pentagon report turned out to be just as ridiculous as the UN “climate refugees” forecasts.

By now, according to the “not implausible” scaremongering outlined in the report for a 10-year time period, the world should be a post-apocalyptic disaster zone. Among other outlandish scenarios envisioned in the report over the preceding decade: California flooded with inland seas, parts of the Netherlands “unlivable,” polar ice all but gone in the summers, and surging temperatures. Mass increases in hurricanes, tornadoes, and other natural disasters were supposed to be wreaking havoc across the globe, too. All of that would supposedly spark resource wars and all sorts of other horrors. But none of it actually happened.?”

and

“The IPCC has also been relentlessly hyping the snowless winter scare, along with gullible or agenda-driven politicians. In its 2001 Third Assessment Report, for example, the IPCC claimed “milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms.” Again, though, the climate refused to cooperate. The year 2013, the last year for which complete data is available, featured the fourth-highest levels on record, according to data from Rutgers University’s Global Snow Lab. Spring snow cover was the highest in a decade, while data for the fall indicate that it was the fifth highest ever recorded. Last December, meanwhile, brought with it a new high record in Northern Hemisphere snow cover, Global Snow Lab data show.”

and

“James Hansen, for instance, who headed NASA’s Goddard Institute for three dec­ades before taking a post at Columbia University, is one of the best known “climatologists” in the world — despite his long and embarrassing record of bad forecasting spanning decades.
In 1988, Hansen was asked by journalist and author Rob Reiss how the “greenhouse effect” would affect the neighborhood outside his window within 20 years (by 2008). “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water,” Hansen claimed. “And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.... There will be more police cars … [since] you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.” In 1986, Hansen also predicted in congressional testimony that the Earth would be some two degrees warmer within 20 years. In recent years, after the anticipated warming failed to materialize, alarmists have cooled on predicting such a dramatic jump in temperature over such a short period of time.
Separately, another prominent alarmist, Princeton professor and lead UN IPCC author Michael Oppenheimer, made some dramatic predictions in 1990 while working as “chief scientist” for the Environmental Defense Fund. By 1995, he said then, the “greenhouse effect” would be “desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots.” By 1996, he added, the Platte River of Nebraska “would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers.” The situation would get so bad that “Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands.” “ —All from New American

Oh, boy...Bernie is saying that most people he talks to are willing to pay $1,000 more in taxes to end up saving $5,000 in health care costs. Stop! The government (both parties) has such a great history of "saving" money for us.

No thanks!!

Quote: RonC

Oh, boy...Bernie is saying that most people he talks to are willing to pay $1,000 more in taxes to end up saving $5,000 in health care costs. Stop! The government (both parties) has such a great history of "saving" money for us.

No thanks!!

Damm
I wanted to vote for Bernie
I may never get the chance
He's about the only candidate I would consider sitting at a bar with to have a drink.
Though I lean left, registered republican voter in battleground state FL
The republican races for the nomination are so much more fun to have a vote

The only loser I am hoping for in Iowa are the pollsters. I hope Trump either heavily dominates or totally tanks

I see loser Cruz is so desperate, putting out fake mailers
Cmon Ted, if the people don't want you to be President , deal with it
He's desperate, 1st the I'll donate to charity for a one on one Trump debate . Now the bogus mailer, another hail mary from a loser
https://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/ted-cruz-slammed-for-creepy-mailers-shaming-iowans-for-a-bogus-voting-violation/

Single payer health care does save a tremendous amount of money. And, obviously, if you had it, you wouldn't have to pay for private. Come on, that's pretty obvious.



The biggest problem with Bernie's health care and higher education proposals is that there is so much corruption baked into both of those systems. They are both about running up as big a bill as possible. We'd have to fix that before we made them "free." At least now they are somewhat constrained by a customer's ability to pay.

The Obamacare plan has 17.6 million people insured that did not previously have coverage. The average increase in health care costs last year was around 5.25%. The average annual increase over the past 30 years has been 9.16%. Like it or not, it works. It just needs some refinement.

Quote: Rigondeaux

Single payer health care does save a tremendous amount of money. And, obviously, if you had it, you wouldn't have to pay for private. Come on, that's pretty obvious.



The biggest problem with Bernie's health care and higher education proposals is that there is so much corruption baked into both of those systems. They are both about running up as big a bill as possible. We'd have to fix that before we made them "free." At least now they are somewhat constrained by a customer's ability to pay.

You hit on it--I don't really want single payer because I don't think it provides the best in health care to everyone but, putting that aside, when has our government actually fixed something? Usually they just raise taxes and fix nothing.

Quote: SanchoPanza

Actually there is more than abundance of them available. It might help to construct a strong search request.

http://www.lowerwolfjaw.com/agw/quotes.htm

Just about 5 minutes of skimming. But it seems like they cherry picked a few "worst case scenario" predictions and are attacking those. I'm pretty sure you could do that with anything. Google says the Panthers were 60-1 to win the SB preseason. I guess that proves sports betting markets are completely inaccurate!

We have seen increases in the earth's surface temp, increases in ocean temp, shrinking of the ice pack, etc. It correlates to a huge increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.

The overwhelming majority of scientific experts who study the subject independently reach similar conclusions. I'm pretty comfortable saying that there is at least a 5% chance they are right.

NASA breaks it down here. Yes, the same NASA who screwed up The Challenger. But they've had one or two successes as well. Maybe their guess is better than that of a blogger with a political agenda. Is that at least possible?

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Quote: Rigondeaux

Just about 5 minutes of skimming. But it seems like they cherry picked a few "worst case scenario" predictions and are attacking those. I'm pretty sure you could do that with anything.

Certainly that would be the case with the largely incompetent daily weather forecasts. But you picked the one site that has 95 authoritative but clearly dumb, dumb, pronouncements spread over 124 years. That is not "skimming" or "cherry picking." And that is just one of the several extensive lists posted.

Quote: steeldco

The Obamacare plan has 17.6 million people insured that did not previously have coverage. The average increase in health care costs last year was around 5.25%. The average annual increase over the past 30 years has been 9.16%. Like it or not, it works. It just needs some refinement.

Actually even the government's numbers say the long-predicted death spiral has begun:

Professor Seth Chandler, who teaches insurance law at the University of Houston, writes that data released by the Department of Health and Human Services about a month ago show "the beginnings of an adverse selection death spiral that threatens the stability of the system of insurance created by the Affordable Care Act." Chandler adds, "Private health insurance is fragile. It generally does not well withstand the sort of underwriting regulation imposed by" Obamacare.

Charles Gaba, an Obamacare supporter, has studied premiums in the exchanges and found that the weighted average increase in premiums from 2015 to 2016—reflecting what the typical person is likely facing—is a whopping 12 to 13 percent nationally. Most Americans, needless to say, aren't getting 12 to 13 percent raises to keep pace with their premium increases. Chandler finds that price spikes are even greater for plans with wider doctor networks—when such plans are even offered. He observes the disappearance this fall of plans with wider doctor networks that were available last year on the Obamacare exchange in Houston—arguably the health care capital of America. "Basically," he writes, "it is no longer true in [Houston] that you have a choice of doctor if you purchase an Obamacare plan. You get what the HMO or EPO gives you."

No wonder Americans are disobeying the command to buy Obamacare-compliant insurance. The administration now says it "expects 10 million" people to be enrolled in the exchanges by the end of 2016. That's less than half the CBO's projection of 21 million for 2016 that it made when Obamacare was passed and reiterated just this spring. weekly standard

Quote: terapined

Damm
I wanted to vote for Bernie

I'm concerned his platform is too aggressive.

Similar to when Republicans don't deal with what starting point they are working with, and go too far right. Also, while a little bit of socialism might be okay, more is not necessarily better.

Sometimes more of something is better. Sometimes it is not. (like the first time I decided eight drinks made me feel pretty good, 5 or 6 more would be better -- wrong_)

EDIT -and actually 8 was really too much to begin with.

Quote: SanchoPanza

Charles Gaba, an Obamacare supporter, has studied premiums in the exchanges and found that the weighted average increase in premiums from 2015 to 2016—reflecting what the typical person is likely facing—is a whopping 12 to 13 percent nationally. Most Americans, needless to say, aren't getting 12 to 13 percent raises to keep pace with their premium increases. Chandler finds that price spikes are even greater for plans with wider doctor networks—when such plans are even offered. He observes the disappearance this fall of plans with wider doctor networks that were available last year on the Obamacare exchange in Houston—arguably the health care capital of America. "Basically," he writes, "it is no longer true in [Houston] that you have a choice of doctor if you purchase an Obamacare plan. You get what the HMO or EPO gives you."

No wonder Americans are disobeying the command to buy Obamacare-compliant insurance. The administration now says it "expects 10 million" people to be enrolled in the exchanges by the end of 2016. That's less than half the CBO's projection of 21 million for 2016 that it made when Obamacare was passed and reiterated just this spring. weekly standard

First of all, Gaba's comment on premiums increasing MAY very well be true. However, how do the increases compare to the increases that we have been experiencing over the past 20 or 30 years? I would suggest favorably. Secondly, it does not matter what premiums have done. What matters is what health care costs in total have done, and those are well under average from where they have been the past 30 years.

Insofar as choice of doctors goes, what was stated is true. What needs to also be said is that if your doctor is no longer covered by your policy then switch policies. It happened to me. My doctors and hospital were dropped from being in network. That's OK. I just switched to an insurance carrier that had them in network. No big deal.

The last paragraph regarding what is expected to "enroll" also matters not. The fact is that there are 17.6 million people with insurance coverage now that did not have it before. That's 17.6 million people off of the government dole.

BTW, it is one of the few things that Obama had right...........

Quote: steeldco

BTW, it is one of the few things that Obama had right...........

Whats funny is the right insists on using the term Obamacare instead of the Afordable care act
The FDR legacy would love for Social Security to be called Roosevelt Security
50 years from now, people will still appreciate their Health Insurance and know exactly which President made it possible
Thanks Obama :-)

Prediction in 50 years when Obamacare is entrenched and appreciated just like social security
The right will take credit saying this was all started due to the rights Rommney care in Massachusetts

Meanwhile in IA today things are getting testy between loser Cruz and Trump regarding of all things, Obamacare
"Cruz, meanwhile, pressed forward Sunday with the line of attack, proclaiming: "A vote for Donald Trump is a vote for Obamacare.""
"Look, Ted Cruz is a total liar. I am so against Obamacare. I've been saying it for two years in my speeches, I'm going to repeal and replace Obamacare," Trump said on ABC's "This Week." "I don't even know where he gets this."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/31/politics/donald-trump-ted-cruz-health-care-obamacare/index.html

Quote: terapined

Whats funny is the right insists on using the term Obamacare instead of the Afordable care act
The FDR legacy would love for Social Security to be called Roosevelt Security
50 years from now, people will still appreciate their Health Insurance and know exactly which President made it possible
Thanks Obama :-)

Yep. The Republicans, by using the term Obamacare, will have taken one of our weaker Presidents and probably have made him to appear like a genius in the future since Obamacare is all that will be remembered.

Quote: steeldco

The fact is that there are 17.6 million people with insurance coverage now that did not have it before. That's 17.6 million people off of the government dole.

The often quoted 17.6 million figure includes the seven million to 10 million whose policies were canceled thanks to the Affordable Care Act:

"Four sources deeply involved in the Affordable Care Act tell NBC News that 50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a “cancellation” letter or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don’t meet the standards mandated by the new health care law. One expert predicts that number could reach as high as 80 percent. And all say that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience “sticker shock.”

None of this should come as a shock to the Obama administration. The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be “grandfathered,” meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they don’t meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date -- the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example -- the policy would not be grandfathered.

Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.” That means the administration knew that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them." nbc news