5
   

Hillary the prostitute, Pay to Play

 
 
reasoning logic
 
  -4  
Reply Sun 23 Oct, 2016 05:30 pm
@giujohn,
Do you expect someone like farmerman with the in-depth knowledge of paleontology to also read the in-depth evidence of what you are trying to share? Drunk Shocked Rolling Eyes 2 Cents
RABEL222
 
  3  
Reply Sun 23 Oct, 2016 09:20 pm
@reasoning logic,
Another Russian surrogate.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  4  
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2016 06:37 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

Ok, I see what you guys are doing. So despite the fact that the average amount that employees need to contribute toward their health care has increased more than 134 percent over the past decade, you see the actual cost of insurance not increasing as much as a good thing. Got it.

Ever time you start to lose an argument, you move the goalposts.

First it was show that the ACA has slowed the rate at which premiums increase.

Now it's show how the ACA didn't wipe out rate increases that happened before it was enacted....


You have a lot in common with your buddy Trump. You both act like children. If someone came to your desk and handed you an Oreo, you'd bitch and whine that it wasn't chocolate chip.
McGentrix
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2016 06:43 am
@DrewDad,
Lose an argument? Me? Never happens.

I misunderstood what point was attempting to be made. See, I thought that it was being presented as people that pay for health insurance were paying less for care after the ACA was implemented when all that was really being presented was how shitty health insurance plans have become since implementing the ACA.

Big difference.
DrewDad
 
  7  
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2016 06:54 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

Lose an argument? Me? Never happens.

You're a legend in your own mind, I'm sure.

McGentrix wrote:
I thought that it was being presented as people that pay for health insurance were paying less for care after the ACA was implemented



McGentrix wrote:

parados wrote:
The argument that insurance costs have gone up since the ACA as a direct result of the ACA is a BS argument. Insurance costs rose at a faster rate before the ACA.


I won't hold my breath, but if you have some evidence of that to share with the class, that would be great.

So you're either a) moving the goalposts as I said or b) not even bothering to pay attention to the conversion, or the data that you expressed an interest in.

Meh. You've reached Lash levels of idiocy and mendacity.
McGentrix
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2016 07:30 am
@DrewDad,
To be accurate, Parados never did provide evidence...
DrewDad
 
  6  
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2016 07:58 am
@McGentrix,
To be even more accurate, the evidence was provided.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  6  
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2016 11:19 am
@McGentrix,
If the health plans were shitty after the ACA then they were shitty before it. The majority of the increases in employee costs occurred before the ACA was passed and even more occurred before the ACA was implemented.

From 2005 to 2011 the employee costs went up by about 10% per year and went up 72% over that time period
From 2011 to 2015 the employee costs went up about 8% per year and 36% over the time period.

No one has claimed they pay less in actual dollars than before. The claim has been that the increases in costs have been reduced. But the opponents of the ACA prefer to build straw men when it comes to claiming it is bad. They never seem to argue about the actual facts.
McGentrix
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2016 12:14 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
From 2005 to 2011 the employee costs went up by about 10% per year and went up 72% over that time period
From 2011 to 2015 the employee costs went up about 8% per year and 36% over the time period.


You have those facts and you got them from somewhere, just post the link. You can do conjecture linkless all day long and we can have a great conversation about it but when you post "facts", follow with a link.
McGentrix
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2016 12:20 pm
@parados,
For example, in 2006 I had a great insurance plan (You can keep your plan, you can keep your doctor.) and I paid a monthly amount ($250/mth) and my employer paid the bulk amount. That year when negotiations opened up, that plan was no longer available. (I couldn't keep my plan.)

Instead of my nice plan that I paid a little each month for, I now had a high deductible ($7200/year + $300/mth) and my monthly charge increased. I was able to keep my Dr. because it was still Blue Cross.

So, every paycheck I give a little "**** you Obama" when I see that I am making less and paying more. We still have the same crappy health insurance.
giujohn
 
  -4  
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2016 12:23 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

To be accurate, Parados never did provide evidence...


He never does because he's often wrong.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  6  
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2016 12:31 pm
@McGentrix,
Blame your employer.

My company threatened to force those high deductible plans on us, too. They backed down, though, when they started having trouble recruiting folks.

My previous company kept hiking the rates on us. Every year they'd try to renegotiate, and every year we kept paying more. They were much smaller than my current employer, though, and their profit and revenue per employee was much lower, too. This was a major factor in finding a new employer.

Nowadays, I could probably do better on the exchange than what my old employer could offer.


0 Replies
 
parados
 
  6  
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2016 06:21 pm
@McGentrix,
It was your link. Did you forget you posted it?

But here it is again..
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2015/11/12/388800.htm

I think you can do the math. It's simple compounding interest.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  5  
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2016 07:16 pm
@reasoning logic,
actually my "in depth" knowledge is within the perview of the clip tht Gooey posted. I suggest you undertqnd 2 things

1Uranium ore is about s common as ZINC in the earth' crust. Every state could be a overall UO and UF6 salt producer(If they had beneficiation equip and reaction means to produce UF6) (Sandstone (Carnotite) deposits are all over NM, Utah, QWyo, Colo, etc0 Some of the biggest deposits of phosphate sandstone deposits are actually in Florida.

2.FINSA, which updates a resource sales to foreign entities reg of 57 , was set up by the GW Bush admin in 2007. It provides review by a committee set up within Treasury, Homeland Security, and oversight by Congress.

PSST, we buy and sell oil and gas also.

The "mine" in Wyo, is actually an estimated reserve prospect. Any actual "mining" is done to sefine reserves in comliqnce with existing Fed reg and reserve estimates .
(Theres a difference).

If it ever cm to heated up relations between us and Russia, you dont think we would not nationalize all such reserves?? (Hint; its in our country, not theirs, duhh).

Like most other horse-**** you guys masturbate over, resource sales are a business decision. FINSA provides the actual percentage of our projected needed resource we may sell to anyone who wants to buy (within certain limits ,like N Korea).( I think its 20% or under)
Weve even dialed back our restrictions on amts of reactor fuel we sell to Iran.(or percentage reactor grade HF6).
The world is NOT resource limited re: Uranium, (and bomb fuel Pu is a product of U decay), it is mostly limited by technology . We hve some of the top means to beneficiate U lts for bomb mfg, while Russia still uses steam . THATS what we want to control)
farmerman
 
  5  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2016 03:10 am
@farmerman,
The smart money has for several years now been put down on lithium futures.
The price for Li (In use mostly as Oxide or as Carbonate) has spiked to over 8 dollars a pound on the spot market. Li/Ti/ REE's have been big commodity projects for me since the late 80's,
giujohn
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2016 03:51 am
@farmerman,
Well thank you very much for the lesson in investing but as usual given your pedanticism you miss the point. Let me restate it is it seems to be lost in the minutiae of your rather boring post about the geological aspect of uranium ore.
It's all about the shady nexus between the clintons and her campaign manager John podesta with Vladimir Putin and the ongoing play for pay saga especially in light of Hillary's false accusations about Trump and Putin being best buddies and some false narrative about backroom dealings to give Trump an advantage in the election.
farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2016 04:07 am
@giujohn,
I understand your inabilities in abstract thought so I had to make as many connections so youd see what FINSA was all about and how, if you really are incensed about selling Uranium ORE (from mines that are mere prospects), youd have been informed when it was being played with in Congress (as a mod to earlier laws).

NOOO, sometimes full facts do get in the way of a "ripping right wing yarn"

As I say, U is as common as Zinc and is used for everything from bombs to pottery. you can buy U ore from Amazon.
So, if its a point ya want to make, Pardon me if I insert a jot of how resource economics actually work.

Are you gtting all steamed about us selling our meager Li resources from Nevada or N Carolina?
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2016 06:09 pm
@farmerman,
Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal


You went off on your own tangent and were not able to follow the pay to play money.

reasoning logic
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2016 06:28 pm
@farmerman,
Wake up sleepy head

0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  6  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2016 07:18 pm
@reasoning logic,
so whats the crime einstein?
A donation to a 501-3 (c). The only thing I see is a possible disclosure issue, and thats sorta a Canadian Issue .
Are you a financial discloure expert? Cause you dont know jackshit about the legalityof resource sales and trade. (Which is where you and Krispy Kreme started this one)

 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/22/2019 at 03:33:45