I have done the same thing, but only recently. and I still don't know how long I am going to do so. Quite frankly, I might make it permanent.
See, stating a fact doesn't make it "wishful thinking" I am glad you are able to separate the two, several on "your side of the aisle" would insist that any righty who simply stated the fact that the more terrorist attacks in the coming months, the worse it is going to be for Hillary was indeed "hoping" this would happen. and those people are most definitely TSTTT, you came VERY close to doing exactly that, in fact you DID even say it, but I will accept you coming back from the brink of becoming TSTTT yourself. Rooting for people to die is something that only the likes of Willy Wonka would do, WB did come close as well.-- Modified on 7/30/2016 2:12:15 PM
Despite what below link & oddsmakers are saying, still a tossup race, in my opinion.
It's not that Trump's bump has "already" evaporated, as if this was something totally unexpected, it's simply a matter of Hillary getting her own convention bump, just like it happens EVERY election cycle..
See, this is what I hate about reporting and reporters like this one. The words are accurate, but couched to mislead the reader into believing something other than the truth.
BTW, the odds have tightened a bit, Hillary is down to 1-2 from 2-5 a week or so ago and Trump is now under 2-1. I wouldn't say the race is a "tossup" but I agree it's hardly a slam dunk for Clinton
Particularly with the neverending onslaught of damaging e-mail info. acquired by Russian hackers.
Check out below link for more stats, including what the odds are.
As Cheesy points out, others have it differently.
It will be interesting to see where the race is after the Olympics, as that is when people will turn away from politics a bit and the convention bounces for both will be gone.
Hillary has put herself in a bad position, imo. She has doubled downed on Obama's policies at a time where 70% of the country wants change.
She will have to defend the economy, currently at 1.2% GDP and first quarter revised down to 0.8%. It is struggling badly and Deutsche Bank came out and said there is a 60% change of a U.S recession. Not good for Hills.
Obamacare has been in the news a lot lately with skyrocketing premium increases and the exchanges headed for collapse with a 39% approval. Not good for Hills.
ISIS is making news almost daily, cops are under assault, and the world is a complete mess much of which is due to her disastrous tenure at state and the policies instituted by her boss at the time. Not good for Hills.
Then of course the likelihood of more leaked emails which could lead to an FBI investigation and more embarrassment of what the Clinton Foundation was doing with its money and who was potentially buying access.
Whew! Lot going on so things will change, thats for sure.
HRC currently has a 1% lead in Missouri ? Fucking red state Missouri ?! That L.A. tracking polls show trump's #'s dropping & I predict will continue to sink for him.
I will take bets that her #'s will continue to rise over the next week, but pitfalls are all over the place.
OTOH, there's always Trump's big & stupid mouth willing to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Seriously. HRC is lucky to have such an inept opponent, otherwise she'd currently be losing bigtime.
It will be interesting to see where the race is after the Olympics, as that is when people will turn away from politics a bit and the convention bounces for both will be gone.
Hillary has put herself in a bad position, imo. She has doubled downed on Obama's policies at a time where 70% of the country wants change.
She will have to defend the economy, currently at 1.2% GDP and first quarter revised down to 0.8%. It is struggling badly and Deutsche Bank came out and said there is a 60% change of a U.S recession. Not good for Hills.
Obamacare has been in the news a lot lately with skyrocketing premium increases and the exchanges headed for collapse with a 39% approval. Not good for Hills.
ISIS is making news almost daily, cops are under assault, and the world is a complete mess much of which is due to her disastrous tenure at state and the policies instituted by her boss at the time. Not good for Hills.
Then of course the likelihood of more leaked emails which could lead to an FBI investigation and more embarrassment of what the Clinton Foundation was doing with its money and who was potentially buying access.
Whew! Lot going on so things will change, thats for sure.
And I can not. I agree with everything you just said.
On one hand I cant believe this race is close.
I just change my mind daily on who should be destroying whom. LOL
Come on JD show some new data, you got time to search it out. And Like I said, USC is like polling Trump University...and the "Change" needs to come from all the houses, lose the Senate and Congress....
you would know that the “skyrocketing premium increases” are actually “requests for premium increases” by insurers who mispriced their initial offers to get market share.
We will not know until the fall to what extent the states will allow increases but for most insurers it will be less than they request. Moreover, if your insurer obtains an increase that you consider too high, all you have to do is go back to the federal exchange and buy a policy from a lower cost insurer seeking marketshare, as I tried to explain to poor Mr. Pot last week who apparently has been stuck with a policy that costs more than twice his mortgage payment. No doubt premiums on average in most states will go up next year because the risk corridor provisions are expiring but, in some states, premiums on average are expected to go DOWN.
And, of course, although you decry “premium increases” without considering any benchmark, the premium requests are only true “increases” if they are higher than what you would pay if the ACA had not been enacted. Three years before the ACA, health insurance premiums were increasing 10 to 12% each year in the individual market. If McCAin had been elected and that stayed constant, care to multiply what you would be paying today? I didn’t think so. Enough to make you a Hillary voter. LOL.
We don’t really know whether ACA premiums are truly higher because it is too hard to measure, and because any apples to apples comparison ignores that ACA policies have staggeringly broader coverage. But I find it interesting that the Brookings Institution says that ACA premiums in the individual market are ….drum roll…. LOWER …than projected premiums would be had the ACA not been enacted.
As to the exchanges “heading for collapse” …um…no. Following the Burwell decision, many states saw no point in running their own exchange, so they are defaulting to the federal exchange. But the federal exchange is running just fine.
Now do you see why President Hillary is doubling down on Obamacare
Hey Mr. Obamacare Butt Munch, do you recall the Potus and his lackeys telling us premiums would go up AT ALL?
Ummmmm...no. They say they would FALL, and by $2500 on average per year per family. That NEVER occurred.
Now you are telling us that since the premiums are ONLY rising, what 500-600 percent HIGHER than inflation, its somehow a "good" thing. Oh ok.
Numerous insurance companies have bailed from Ocare creating LESS competition thus creating higher costs and creating more confusion as middle class people have to scour very complex websites every year to constantly look for "better" insurance.
And IF they find it, they are then faced with extremely high deductibles making the insurance virtually worthless. Swell...
Funny how you left out the total out of pocket costs when doing your WK math for premiums but no shock as you continue to be the only one on this board being dishonest about the true and wide ranging negative impacts of the Non Affordable Health Care Act.
There you have it. A law that Dems didn't bother to read before voting on it, that caused premiums to spike NOT go down, with unmanageable and unusable deductibles, where people lost their doctor and their cancer center through Obama's lies, where it is WAY upside down in popularity with not JUST the American people at large, but specifically with people who are uninsured.
And the number one reason the uninsured give they don't have insurance? Obamacare is JUST TOO DAMN EXPENSIVE. lol
28 of the 60 Dem Senators are gone who voted for OCare and it has a 39% approval rating and ONLY YOU could make the case as to it being smart politically for Hills to "double down on Ocare." LOL
Jack 19,345
Mari
“out of pocket costs.” And when you said “ exchanges heading for collapse” you actually meant the few insurers who have left the federal exchange. And your benchmark for “increases” is not what you would be paying without Obamacare but Mr. Obama’s prediction of marketplace premiums. Got it.
Sorry, Jack, but I only respond to what you actually post, not what you secretly mean. So we will save discussion on these points till some time that you actually post about them.
But I take it that you now agree that premiums have not “skyrocketed” and the federal exchange is not collapsing. So at least we agree on those points
I have even linked for you the pro-ACA NY Times calling the rise "significant." lol
I have seen anywhere from 10%-13% projected premium increases for 2017. When the COLA is what, 0-1%, than any reasonable person would say "skyrocketing" is an apt and correct term.
If you read my post, which in your old age you fail to do more and more often, you would've seen me state the increase will be 500-600% or more above inflation. Thats what I actually "posted" not merely what I meant. Go back and look. Its still there. I swear! LOL
Finally glad to see you finally seem to admit that Mr Obama's prediction of premiums was wildly and recklessly off base. Being the honest broker he has always been on the ACA (COUGH, COUGH) I am sure he was just ignorant and wrong about the premiums and not dishonest about them. LO
Here's you some Obamacare. One of my adult aged children works two shitty jobs and last year made $18,000. That's $18,000 gross income. Out of that he pays rent, food, utilities, gas, car insurance, etc. He lives in a shit-hole apartment and eats a lot of Ramen noodes.
He has not had health insurance.
I thought surely he would qualify for a subsidy, and maybe even get health insurance free. Well he did qualify for some assistance. And after the subsidy his least expensive option was going to cost him $263 a month. Now, never mind the HUGE deductibles that policy would come with. No way he can afford $263 a month. So guess what? He pays the tax penalty.
So there is my first-hand experience with the wonders of Obamacare. A tax increase on somebody that makes $18,000 a year
If your adult son is 30, the average bronze plan is $257 a month in premiums on the federal exchange. But with an $18,000 gross income (actually we use a modified AGI to calculate subsidies but we will stay with your number), he would be eligible for a 50 to 70% subsidy. In short, the actual premium would be about $110 to $130.
If he is 21 he can get a silver plan for $171 a month and after the subsidy he will pay only $63 per month.
Here are the results I got using the on line calculator for a non smoking 21 year old with $18000 income
Estimated financial help:
$171 per month ($2,049 per year)
as a premium tax credit. This covers 73% of the monthly costs.
Your cost for a silver plan:
$63 per month ($757 per year)
in premiums (which equals 4.21% of your household income).
Use the on line subsidy calculator I have linked to put in the correct age and other info.
No way he pays $263 a month AFTER THE SUBSIDY with that income, unless he is about 60 years old or bought a gold plan.
Obamacare to the rescue
I can't believe it either. I used Covered California, my zip code, and used 27 years of age. I assumed if his kid was under 27, he would be on his dad's plan. I'm surprised you are not up to speed on all the wonderful benefits. Why Bronze? He still gets preventive care regardless of the medal plan. He is young, so you have to assume little to no doctor visits. Silver is overkill.
The fact that I even responded to your post in no way suggests my approval of Obamacare. I do agree there are some benefits, but irrespective of all the bullshit tossed on this board about the program, there are 2 elements that I can't get passed, and you can't refute.
1. My taxes went up to help pay for this crap. My compassion, sympathy and/or empathy has a financial cap on it. I don't believe in allowing liberals to have unfettered access to my accounts.
2. The roll-out of the program. Without a doubt, it was one of the worst operational nightmares of a program, government or private. Multiple exchanges, multiple platforms, multiple call centers, none of which worked, and all it could have been accomplished with a simple tax credit. But no, government had to attempt to reinvent a process already in existence.
If he is 21 he can get a silver plan for $171 a month and after the subsidy he will pay only $63 per month.
Here are the results I got using the on line calculator for a non smoking 21 year old with $18000 income
Estimated financial help:
$171 per month ($2,049 per year)
as a premium tax credit. This covers 73% of the monthly costs.
Your cost for a silver plan:
$63 per month ($757 per year)
in premiums (which equals 4.21% of your household income).
Use the on line subsidy calculator I have linked to put in the correct age and other info.
No way he pays $263 a month AFTER THE SUBSIDY with that income, unless he is about 60 years old or bought a gold plan.
Obamacare to the rescue.
and frankly they should have gone up more to pay for the needed risk corridor provisions. But that is the policy choice necessary for the unlimited insurance you have now – as compared to the capped insurance you had previously. If you get sick now, you will never be wiped out. I hope you stay an angry white man and rage against Obamacare all your life, as opposed to being diagnosed with cancer or ALS and seeing your life saving drained. That is when you will change your tune.
And the roll out was horrible. I still remain utterly baffled as to how Mr. Obama ‘s staff could let him say “you can keep your own doctor,” and “keep your own health plan” when that would be true in only a small percentage of cases. Predicting premiums was also a fool’s errand.
But that has nothing to do with whether ACA is good policy or not
If it was such a good policy, they wouldn't have needed to lie about losing your doctor or the $2500 savings for families. Don't you understand that?
And who on the Dem side could have possibly have known it was good or bad possibly? There was no debate on the Dem side. They didn't even bother to read it so how could they have possibly known it was great or it sucked?
And your "wiped out" comment is ridiculous. 3/4's of the country lives pay check to pay check. What is the deducible on those bronze plans Mari? $8K for individuals? $15K for families?
When one is living pay check to pay check "wiped out" happens awfully quick, with or without your beloved Ocare, Mari.
Get out of your 1% car and try talking with the 75% and under crowd for awhile.
Trust me, your definition of "wiped out" and how quick one arrives at that designation will change in about 30 seconds if you do.
-- Modified on 7/30/2016 8:23:21 PM
bc he was pretty lousy at predicting the future with respect to how this complex and unique health insurance law would actually work in the marketplace. But I get it- you are mad at the President for being wrong. I wouldn’t follow his stock picks either Jack.
We don’t know yet whether the ACA is good policy on balance. Many, many problems with it as President Obama himself pointed in his JAMA article. But for the insured who get sick, that ship has sailed – there is no possible better deal. That’s why you don’t hear many cancer patients saying “I hate Obamacare.”
But, hey, I’ll put you down as agreeing with Mr. Trump who is going to repeal “this horrible stupid Obamacare” and replace it with “something that’s great.”
I wonder what he's got in mind. Maybe Trump will get Mexico to pay for your health insurance Jack. LOL
Nice slick website from the Kaiser Family Foundation. Makes it look a lot better, right?
Of course, you don't buy the insurance from that site, do you? No
And when you go to Healthcare.Gov you don't get any instant price quotes. You enter all your info and wait. I just checked it again. It took a couple days when we tried it beforel. And the numbers your lovely KFF site shows? You won't see anything like them.
Obamacare to the rescue? If you lived on $18,000 a year how much a month do you suppose you could afford for health insurance? He can not afford to run the fucking air conditioner sometimes...and you don't have any problem with a government act that raises his taxes because he can not afford anything more than what he has on his plate already?
A tax increase on a poverty level wage earner, and you figure that's him being rescued. Does your alternate reality ever bump into the real world
You cannot get 2016 coverage now, unless you qualify for special enrollment. So if “you just checked it again,” of course, Health Care gov did not give you the actual premium quotes and the same numbers you would have got last fall.
The Kaiser website as I understand it uses a state average based on the actual premiums for the last year. - the actual premiums on Health Care . gov will be a little different for that same year.
The 2017 premiums have not been set yet. So obviously Kaiser cannot calculate an average for 2017 yet. Wait until the enrollment period, enter your numbers on Health Care . gov and I would be willing to bet the Kaiser subsidy projection is going to be pretty close
but she is so incredibly unlikeable I have to confess it was a necessary and correct move for her to have done so.
Her best chance of winning is to do as little as possible and let Obama and others do her campaigning for her. The more the public sees of her, the more they are going to be reminded about what a duplicitous cunt she is. Personally, I can't stand Obama, but his popularity numbers are in a completely different league than hers (or Trump's for that matter)
The one place that she (and Obama) are the weakest is on national security, the more ISIS attacks there are over the next few months and the more Obama and by extension Hillary continue to insist "everything is fine" the worse it is going to be for Hillary. As I have been saying for almost a year, "there is a very real chance that Trump could win this"
Stooping to the lowest partisan hackery like Red Clod, FM & B5 ? Doesn't make you look good, GaG, at all.
Trying to distort my statement only makes you look like LTM,
BTW I have tried out the "ignore function" where it comes to our favorite pest, I think I may reconsider my disdain for the ignore feature. It's kind of like turning down the volume when someone starts playing "head banging" music.
Do you deny that further terrorist attacks will harm the Clinton campaign?
They twisted his words intentionally to try and injure him and it failed badly.
Yes, one can state a fact that repeated national security lapses/tragedies will adversely affect the incumbent party. This is news? Where?
I think Choosy is a decent enough guy to realize he was mistaken with your post as no one here would think you, or any rational person here which is most, would want innocents to die for some possible political benefit.
Why you haven't done the same is puzzling.
IF there are more ISIS attacks, yes , it would be detrimental to her, at what level, who can say ?
I just hope there aren't any further attacks simply because civilian casualties are barbaric & appalling crimes against humanity, NOT because it would benefit HRC.
I have done the same thing, but only recently. and I still don't know how long I am going to do so. Quite frankly, I might make it permanent.
See, stating a fact doesn't make it "wishful thinking" I am glad you are able to separate the two, several on "your side of the aisle" would insist that any righty who simply stated the fact that the more terrorist attacks in the coming months, the worse it is going to be for Hillary was indeed "hoping" this would happen. and those people are most definitely TSTTT, you came VERY close to doing exactly that, in fact you DID even say it, but I will accept you coming back from the brink of becoming TSTTT yourself.
Rooting for people to die is something that only the likes of Willy Wonka would do, WB did come close as well.
-- Modified on 7/30/2016 2:12:15 PM
In fact we are overdue based on historical averages. Just look at the bond market. That is usually the most reliable non-partisan indicator. And since 1960, every recession guarantees the incumbent party holding the White House loses. Of course we are not in a normal bond market thanks to the Fed.
Hillary is not only doubling down on Obama's policies, she has taken the Progressive mantel from Bernie. Didn't she say everybody who wants a good job can have one. How does that work. Free college tuition at public universities. First semester of econ...when you subsidize something already in demand, something bad happens.
If Hillary doesn't tack to the center, she will alienate the independents and moderates.
Since I am pro-immigration, pro-free trade, pro-outsouring, I'll sit out this election. I'm screwed regardless of who gets elected.
It will be interesting to see where the race is after the Olympics, as that is when people will turn away from politics a bit and the convention bounces for both will be gone.
Hillary has put herself in a bad position, imo. She has doubled downed on Obama's policies at a time where 70% of the country wants change.
She will have to defend the economy, currently at 1.2% GDP and first quarter revised down to 0.8%. It is struggling badly and Deutsche Bank came out and said there is a 60% change of a U.S recession. Not good for Hills.
Obamacare has been in the news a lot lately with skyrocketing premium increases and the exchanges headed for collapse with a 39% approval. Not good for Hills.
ISIS is making news almost daily, cops are under assault, and the world is a complete mess much of which is due to her disastrous tenure at state and the policies instituted by her boss at the time. Not good for Hills.
Then of course the likelihood of more leaked emails which could lead to an FBI investigation and more embarrassment of what the Clinton Foundation was doing with its money and who was potentially buying access.
Whew! Lot going on so things will change, thats for sure.
The analysis's I've read solidly agree that it will be at least 2 weeks before the polls accurately measure the bounce of each convention.