CU election projection gurus still have Romney winning...actually kinda predicting a landslide

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by Requiem

My favorite model is the mixed president is better than a Mormon president model.

Unfortunately, one of the models deducts ~3% from Obama, because he's mixed...it's called "The Race Factor". It basically says that people who aren't black, might not vote for him because they think he might favor blacks.

Kinda like some of my younger black friends, who are going to vote for Obama just because they don't perceive him as "the man"...or the white man to be more specific. Completely disregarding qualifications and performance, of course.

[Requiem]

Most people are dumb and vote for stupid reasons. Not surprising. This is the same country that historically speaking, only let blacks and women vote in the last 100 years. Glad we got with the times.

[Jetmeck]

Originally Posted by spdirty

These guys are really putting their reputations on the line with this. They have it 330-208 for Romney. Hope they're right. I honestly don't know who's gonna win, just putting this out there because it's interesting.

http://www.colorado.edu/news/release...win-university

Only in the ass backwards world you live in ?

Heh....I got a couple bridges for sale ?


Dumbass............................

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by Requiem

Most people are dumb and vote for stupid reasons. Not surprising. This is the same country that historically speaking, only let blacks and women vote in the last 100 years. Glad we got with the times.

FYI, the quran gave women voting rights almost 1,500 years ago. Bet you didn't know that!

I wouldn't vote for anybody if I perceived that they were giving special handouts and priveledges to certain groups of people based on their gender, or race. It's despicable, like a monarchy. That's the main reason why I don't like Obama.

[Jetmeck]

Originally Posted by Crushaholic

No, you're correct. I don't trust Romney as far as I can throw him. He says whatever he needs to say, in order to be elected. However, the ONLY chance of repealing Obamacare is a Romney win. That's how I'm seeing it...

oBAMACARE is good thing/

More wars and tax breaks for the rich are bad things.

Please do not decide on just ONE ISSUE............

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by Jetmeck

oBAMACARE is good thing/

More wars and tax breaks for the rich are bad things.

Please do not decide on just ONE ISSUE............

at Socialists.

How is taking 2.5% of my pay away (Obamacare tax), and redistributing it to someone else in the form of over-priced healthcare (without them having to do anything for it), a "good thing"?

It's not a good thing. It's bad for me, and bad for everyone else, who now has to pay a higher marginal cost for healthcare created by my dollars that someone else is using. The subsidized person receiving my money never would have purchased the product at that cost, without my redistributed money.

It's precisely why Socialist redistribution policies don't work...they destroy competition, and disable the invisible hand. There is literally no point in the equation, where the price of healthcare goods is competitive.

That can begin to change that by repealing Obamacare, and giving block grant funding to Seniors, in order that they can pay out of pocket for healthcare services, including health insurance, if they wish.

[Requiem]

I'm so glad I have awesome insurance.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Requiem

I'm so glad I have awesome insurance.

There's no such thing. Only the illusion.

[The Lone Bolt]

Originally Posted by pricejj

at Socialists.

How is taking 2.5% of my pay away (Obamacare tax), and redistributing it to someone else in the form of over-priced healthcare (without them having to do anything for it), a "good thing"?

So how would the republicans bring down the cost of HC? What is their plan?

It's not a good thing. It's bad for me, and bad for everyone else, who now has to pay a higher marginal cost for healthcare created by my dollars that someone else is using. The subsidized person receiving my money never would have purchased the product at that cost, without my redistributed money.

Very few would get any "redistributed money" under the AHCA -- those who cannot afford to but insurance on their own. And if those folks don't have insurance they use the ER and we pay for that anyway, so your whining about paying for the HC of others is pointless. Under the current system you already are. And the republicans would do nothing to change that.

It's precisely why Socialist redistribution policies don't work...they destroy competition, and disable the invisible hand. There is literally no point in the equation, where the price of healthcare goods is competitive.

Under the AHCA, everyone buys private insurance. Insurance companies will compete for customers. The invisible hand continues to function.

That can begin to change that by repealing Obamacare, and giving block grant funding to Seniors, in order that they can pay out of pocket for healthcare services, including health insurance, if they wish.

I don't see how that is a solution to getting everyone insured.

[ZONA]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I still don't understand why people back Romney, other than party loyalty or Mormonism. He hasn't taken a stand on anything that lasts more than a week or two. He's the perfect candidate. No matter what you believe, he believes it too. Maybe that's the revolutionary new secret to getting elected.

I just shows how ignorant most people are in this country. For the polls to swing like they have based on a showcase of Romney lies during debate, how can you think anything but most Americans are truly ignorant and lazy. They don't care to fact find for themselves, they're simply won over by body language and being told what they WANT to hear, not what is truth. That is a fact.

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt

So how would the republicans bring down the cost of HC? What is their plan?

www.mittromney.com

Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt

Very few would get any "redistributed money" under the AHCA -- those who cannot afford to but insurance on their own. And if those folks don't have insurance they use the ER and we pay for that anyway, so your whining about paying for the HC of others is pointless. Under the current system you already are. And the republicans would do nothing to change that.

That is completely false. Every individual making under ~$35k per year is subsidized (according to scale), by everyone making over ~$35k per year. What you have, essentially, is the majority of middle-class taxpayers subsidizing overpriced health insurance for the lower middle-class taxpayers, wealthy people whose annual earnings are less than the federal poverty level (who Obamacare exapanded to include under Medicaid), and low income people (Medicaid).

Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt

Under the AHCA, everyone buys private insurance. Insurance companies will compete for customers. The invisible hand continues to function.

Why would I buy $6000 per year health insurance, when I can just pay 2.5% of my annual earnings (which is much less than $6000) and receive nothing? Health insurance companies aren't making much profit as it stands. The problem is healthcare costs are too high. Compounding that issue, when insurance companies are forced to provide "free" products and services to certain priviledged sectors of the population (birth control), and including over-utilization of healthcare, healthcare costs are projected to continue to rise.[/quote]

Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt

I don't see how that is a solution to getting everyone insured.

U.S. healthcare costs are the highest in the world. The question is, how can we bring healthcare costs down...not how much money we can waste on over-priced health insurance (which is what Obamacare is the only thing Obamacare accomplishes).

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by Requiem

I'm so glad I have awesome insurance.

It's government insurance, sponsored by the U.S. taxpayer, and negotiated by the government employees union to shift all the costs onto the private sector.

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt

...

Another way that Obamacare raises costs is by mandating the "Bronze" insurance plan, with a myriad of covered products and services, that most people don't need, and will never need.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by ZONA

I just shows how ignorant most people are in this country. For the polls to swing like they have based on a showcase of Romney lies during debate, how can you think anything but most Americans are truly ignorant and lazy. They don't care to fact find for themselves, they're simply won over by body language and being told what they WANT to hear, not what is truth. That is a fact.

His $5 trillion dollar tax cut is a joke, on its face. Anybody who believes it has **** for brains. He's going to cut loopholes? Which loopholes add up to 5 trillion? He won't say. Bull****. Is he going to cut the mortgage interest write off? Really? Then say goodbye to an already staggering housing industry. He says he'll create 12 million jobs in four years? Most economists say that if we just stayed with the status quo, that many jobs would be created in four years. Romney is feeding people bull**** from one end to the other, and they're buying it up. Just like he used to sell Bain's bull**** promises.

Americans need to learn a little arithmetic.

[The Lone Bolt]

Originally Posted by pricejj

www.mittromney.com

Yes I'm familiar with the Romney "plan": pass the buck to the states and wash your hands of it. While I support the idea of allowing states to experiment and make improvements, I do not support having 50 different HC plans and bureaucracies. The AHCA allows states to experiment and make improvements while maintaining a HC standard for all Americans.

Nothing else in Romney's plan will reduce the cost of HC IMO. Tort reform will have no effect as medical malpractice lawsuits represent less than .6 % of all HC costs. Allowing companies to sell insurance across state lines would lead to companies "cherry picking" the healthiest customers and circumventing consumer protections which would lead to states with the poorest consumer protections to attract more insurance business and probably bring standards down for everyone. And the rest doesn't sound too promising either.

Look, Romney's plan has no working examples in the real world. The AHCA does -- in Switzerland and in Massachusetts. Romney's plan only works in theory. The AHCA works in reality.

That is completely false. Every individual making under ~$35k per year is subsidized (according to scale), by everyone making over ~$35k per year. What you have, essentially, is the majority of middle-class taxpayers subsidizing overpriced health insurance for the lower middle-class taxpayers, wealthy people whose annual earnings are less than the federal poverty level (who Obamacare exapanded to include under Medicaid), and low income people (Medicaid).

I stand corrected. There will be some subsidizing over the poverty line. However:

Nearly two-thirds (64.6 percent) of the 45.7 million uninsured people under age 65 are living in households with incomes of less than 200 percent of poverty, or about $44,100 for a family of four (Exhibit 1). In addition, of the estimated 25 million adults under age 65 who have such high out of pocket costs relative to their income that they are underinsured, more than half (55 percent) have incomes under 200 percent of poverty.

http://www.spotlightonpoverty.org/Ex...6-50e856cdb9b5

So any such "redistribution" will disproportionately benefit the poor.

Why would I buy $6000 per year health insurance, when I can just pay 2.5% of my annual earnings (which is much less than $6000) and receive nothing?

Because you lose the money and still have no health insurance. Besides, what makes you think you will be paying $6000/yr?

Health insurance companies aren't making much profit as it stands. The problem is healthcare costs are too high.

Yes I agree that is a problem. And we have much more work to do. The AHCA is the beginning and not the end. But the AHCA has been demonstrated to work in the real world and Mitt's plan has not.

Compounding that issue, when insurance companies are forced to provide "free" products and services to certain priviledged sectors of the population (birth control), and including over-utilization of healthcare, healthcare costs are projected to continue to rise.

If this becomes a problem then the law can be amended. I don't expect that the AHCA is in it's final state.

U.S. healthcare costs are the highest in the world. The question is, how can we bring healthcare costs down...not how much money we can waste on over-priced health insurance (which is what Obamacare is the only thing Obamacare accomplishes).

Well, here's an article you may want to read from a nice, conservative source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/201...h-care-system/

[Garcia Bronco]

I've changed camps. I will be supporting Romney in the booth on Nov 2nd. I'am looking at my portfolio (it's the economy stupid) and I am listening to my two different FA's and we feel like Romney will help us get a budget, stop or decrease QE(printing money and hopefully help fire Bernanke), as well as just be better from a market standpoint of my portfolio. We'll have to move money around because the printing of money is keeping stocks at artifical levels. Romney is an actual businessman and Obama is not and right now we need to run America like a business that's concerned with it's bottom line. My political hopes are that the Republicans keep the house and win the presidency. Right now Obama is not the best President to help people like me reach a financial level to retire.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt

Yes I'm familiar with the Romney "plan": pass the buck to the states and wash your hands of it. While I support the idea of allowing states to experiment and make improvements, I do not support having 50 different HC plans and bureaucracies. The AHCA allows states to experiment and make improvements while maintaining a HC standard for all Americans.

Nothing else in Romney's plan will reduce the cost of HC IMO. Tort reform will have no effect as medical malpractice lawsuits represent less than .6 % of all HC costs. Allowing companies to sell insurance across state lines would lead to companies "cherry picking" the healthiest customers and circumventing consumer protections which would lead to states with the poorest consumer protections to attract more insurance business and probably bring standards down for everyone. And the rest doesn't sound too promising either.

Look, Romney's plan has no working examples in the real world. The AHCA does -- in Switzerland and in Massachusetts. Romney's plan only works in theory. The AHCA works in reality.




I stand corrected. There will be some subsidizing over the poverty line. However:



http://www.spotlightonpoverty.org/Ex...6-50e856cdb9b5

So any such "redistribution" will disproportionately benefit the poor.




Because you lose the money and still have no health insurance. Besides, what makes you think you will be paying $6000/yr?



Yes I agree that is a problem. And we have much more work to do. The AHCA is the beginning and not the end. But the AHCA has been demonstrated to work in the real world and Mitt's plan has not.



If this becomes a problem then the law can be amended. I don't expect that the AHCA is in it's final state.



Well, here's an article you may want to read from a nice, conservative source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/201...h-care-system/

Tort payouts are rather small...however the premiums for the insurance are not and are passed on right to the customer. One of those customers...medicare....caps it's payout. the money is made up somewhere.

[The Lone Bolt]

Essentially the AHCA "Swissifies" the American HC system:

By many measures, the Swiss are healthier than Americans, and surveys indicate that Swiss people are generally happy with their system. Switzerland, moreover, provides high-quality care at costs well below what the United States spends per person. Swiss insurance companies offer the mandatory basic plan on a not-for-profit basis, although they are permitted to earn a profit on supplemental plans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/he...pagewanted=all

It works there. It can, and will, work here too.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by Jetmeck

oBAMACARE is good thing/

More wars and tax breaks for the rich are bad things.

Please do not decide on just ONE ISSUE............

More wars are a bad thing, but we've got a problem with Israel and Iran. Israel is not going to let Iran have a nuke, period. They will attack Iran. When that happens Iran will close the straights of hormuz. You will see an economic depression unlike any have witnesssed in almost 100 years, maybe the worst ever.

The Bush/Obama tax cuts can't really be repealed anyway. You'll send America into a tailspin during a mini-depression. This could cause the rest of the world to collapse as well. Union jobs will disappear overnight if we go into another global recession. We've got serious global problems to address as country both finanically and geographically. Our goals should be to stop Iran from gaining nukes, but allow them to create better infrastructure. We also need to make sure that we are protecting the world by protecting our economy.

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt

Yes I'm familiar with the Romney "plan": pass the buck to the states and wash your hands of it. While I support the idea of allowing states to experiment and make improvements, I do not support having 50 different HC plans and bureaucracies. The AHCA allows states to experiment and make improvements while maintaining a HC standard for all Americans.

The U.S. does not have a problem with health care standards. We provide the best healthcare in the world. Under Obamacare, a 15 member panel decides what standard of healthcare you will receive. The only way to cut costs under Obamacare is to reduce services, or which reduces standards. Whereas, competition naturally increases standards in a more free-market based approach.

Inexpensive catastrophic health insurance plans with HSA's are the cheapest and best way to provide coverage in case of emergency. If you truly want everyone covered, capping skyrocketing Medicare spending is the best way to reduce healthcare costs. This is true all around the world.

Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt

Nothing else in Romney's plan will reduce the cost of HC IMO. Tort reform will have no effect as medical malpractice lawsuits represent less than .6 % of all HC costs. Allowing companies to sell insurance across state lines would lead to companies "cherry picking" the healthiest customers and circumventing consumer protections which would lead to states with the poorest consumer protections to attract more insurance business and probably bring standards down for everyone. And the rest doesn't sound too promising either.

Romney proposes to reform medicare for younger people, which decreases healthcare costs substantially.

Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt

Look, Romney's plan has no working examples in the real world.

Medicare was enacted in 1965, and has skyrocketed healthcare costs. Capping Medicare spending isn't as dramatic as you make it seem. The world's best healthcare system will remain intact, be more efficient, and less expensive for all. Unlike Obamacare which only increases costs.

Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt

The AHCA does -- in Switzerland and in Massachusetts. Romney's plan only works in theory. The AHCA works in reality.

Massachusetts has the highest healthcare costs in the world, with the fastest increasing healthcare costs. So the answer is "NO"...it doesn't work.

Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt

I stand corrected. There will be some subsidizing over the poverty line. However:

http://www.spotlightonpoverty.org/Ex...6-50e856cdb9b5

So any such "redistribution" will disproportionately benefit the poor.

Obamacare subsidizes individuals and families up to 300% of the federal poverty level...that equates up to about $35k per year for an individual or $69k for a family of four. That is not "poor", that is squarely in the middle-class. The problem is, healthcare costs are too high. There is no reason a family of four who makes $69k per year should be mandated to purchase health insurance with premiums of $7200 per year, or more. They then have to figure out a way to cover the $10,000 deductible to pay for their ACTUAL healthcare.

Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt

Because you lose the money and still have no health insurance. Besides, what makes you think you will be paying $6000/yr?

That's actually what it would cost for me to purchase health insurance now (and the price is projected to increase). As an FYI, a similar plan in Massachusetts (Romneycare) is approximately $8000. As you can see, mandating expensive health insurance for over-priced healthcare is no solution at all.

Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt

Yes I agree that is a problem. And we have much more work to do. The AHCA is the beginning and not the end. But the AHCA has been demonstrated to work in the real world and Mitt's plan has not.

Massachusetts also has the largest debt as a % of GDP of all the states, and the fastest increasing debt...primarily due to increasing healthcare costs. Again, Obamacare doesn't work.

Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt

If this becomes a problem then the law can be amended. I don't expect that the AHCA is in it's final state.

Obama has stated that he doesn't want to revisit healthcare. That he has "fixed" it.

Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt

Well, here's an article you may want to read from a nice, conservative source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/201...h-care-system/

Actually, Singapore has the worlds cheapest, and most effective healthcare system. You should check it out.

Switzerland has a debt to GDP ratio of 401.9% and is the 3rd biggest debtor nation in the world. Socialism does not work.

If the U.S. had that debt to GDP ratio, we would be spending about $1.8T on debt servicing, which is over 70% of federal revenues.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

I've changed camps. I will be supporting Romney in the booth on Nov 2nd. I'am looking at my portfolio (it's the economy stupid) and I am listening to my two different FA's and we feel like Romney will help us get a budget, stop or decrease QE(printing money and hopefully help fire Bernanke), as well as just be better from a market standpoint of my portfolio. We'll have to move money around because the printing of money is keeping stocks at artifical levels. Romney is an actual businessman and Obama is not and right now we need to run America like a business that's concerned with it's bottom line. My political hopes are that the Republicans keep the house and win the presidency. Right now Obama is not the best President to help people like me reach a financial level to retire.

The United States of America is not a business. That's your first mistake. It was not brought into existence to make a profit. This is how ****ed up the American concept of government has become. Here's the mission statement of the U.S.: 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.

Show me a business with that mission statement.

Second, the purpose of the United States is not to enable you to make a profit. I mean jesus ****ing christ! What the **** every happened to, "Ask not what your country can do for you... ?"

Third, your premise of Romney being a good president because he was a businessman (what kind of businessman is a whole another subject) has already been shattered. Here's the three presidents who have been businessmen: George Bush, Herbert Hoover and Warren Harding. All three of them sucked.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

The United States of America is not a business. That's your first mistake. It was not brought into existence to make a profit. This is how ****ed up the American concept of government has become. Here's the mission statement of the U.S.: 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.

Show me a business with that mission statement.

Second, the purpose of the United States is not to able you make a profit. I mean jesus ****ing christ!

Third, your premise of Romney being a good president because he was a businessman (what kind of businessman is a whole another subject) has already been shattered. Here's the three presidents who have been businessmen: George Bush, Herbert Hoover and Warren Harding. All three of them sucked.

It very much is a business. That you don't see that is one of your greatest mistakes politically and financially. It's a failing business. It has poor infrastructure, operations, and ability to make money. Would you invest is such a company? No you wouldn't.

George Washington was a business man. Jefferson was a businessman(who died broke). TR was a businessman and there are many more including Wilson, McKinley, and so on. You don't know your history.

You keep quoting the preamble and it doesn't help your arguments. And hell...a profit? I'd just like the US to break even. lol

[Requiem]

Mitt Romney dealt in private equity. Has nothing to do with job creation, but all about greed and getting the biggest profit margins. Garcia, so funny.

[Requiem]

The only reason Washington was ever a businessman is because he married into a lot of money and got inheritance. That dude was poor as **** before that.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

It very much is a business. That you don't see that is one of your greatest mistakes politically and financially. It's a failing business. It has poor infrastructure, operations, and ability to make money. Would you invest is such a company? No you wouldn't.

George Washington was a business man. Jefferson was a businessman(who died broke). TR was a businessman and there are many more including Wilson, McKinley, and so on. You don't know your history.

You keep quoting the preamble and it doesn't help your arguments. And hell...a profit? I'd just like the US to break even. lol

George Washington was a general. Thomas Jefferson was a scholar. Teddy Roosevelt was never a businessman. Your premise is total hogwash.