U.S. Politics: The Biggest Trade in WNBA History

[BigLutz]

you've convinced me! a delay in one part of the law means it is actuarial fact that premiums are going to see an unprecedented jump in 2015.

Well no the fact that the young and healthies are not at 40% means we will have a premium jump, but I am talking about those that will lose their insurance from the employee mandate

that's 28% of QHPs, meaning it's already excluding under-26s.

I didn't see that in the article it merely stated 18 - 30, either way I still ask, how many of those do not have pre existing conditions

I know that, Lutz, but I didn't hear you or any other Republican complaining about Orly Taitz when she was on her crusade to prove otherwise about Mr. Obama. Or discredit any of the other dumb conspiracy theories about him, like the one about him being a Muslim. (I mean, they assumed he was a pro gay marriage Muslim who doesn't observe any Ramadan traditions... Right, sure.)

If it is posted as part of the debate forum I will talk about it, if not then I will not debate a person that is not here

 

[John Madden]

Well no the fact that the young and healthies are not at 40% means we will have a premium jump

Compared to pre-2010 jumps averaging 7-10%: Nope.

(bear in mind that anything post-2016 discussed in that link is assuming no aspect of the law is amended)

(and that 18-35s accounted for 35% of the federal-run exchanges' enrollment)

but I am talking about those that will lose their insurance from the employee mandate

Who will then qualify for Medicaid (provided that they live in the states that didn't decide spite was better than actually having a functional insurance system) or silver-tier QHPs... provided that they actually lose their insurance from the employer mandate.Considering that "average hours worked" has not appreciably declined in the last two years in spite of the fact that business owners have had a reasonable expectation of needing to comply with the mandate until the last minute for both of those years, somehow I get the feeling this is going to be another thing that winds up being completely overblown.

I didn't see that in the article it merely stated 18 - 30

...The fact that everything about that article is referencing 8 million and not ~23 million should probably have indicated that the 28% is a proportion of QHPs.

either way I still ask, how many of those do not have pre existing conditions

About as many as in the general population.

 

[BigLutz]

Compared to pre-2010 jumps averaging 7-10%: Nope.

(bear in mind that anything post-2016 discussed in that link is assuming no aspect of the law is amended)

(and that 18-35s accounted for 35% of the federal-run exchanges' enrollment)

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatc...136-obamacare-premiums-are-about-to-skyrocket

Triple premium jump for some does not sound small

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...g-premiums-rising-at-fastest-clip-in-decades/

Who will then qualify for Medicaid (provided that they live in the states that didn't decide spite was better than actually having a functional insurance system) or silver-tier QHPs... provided that they actually lose their insurance from the employer mandate.Considering that "average hours worked" has not appreciably declined in the last two years in spite of the fact that business owners have had a reasonable expectation of needing to comply with the mandate until the last minute for both of those years, somehow I get the feeling this is going to be another thing that winds up being completely overblown.

Great they can qualify for Medicaid they just have to go through the hassle of it all and hope their current doctors take it

About as many as in the general population.

You falsely assume that the sign ups are proportionate with the population. In reality those that signed up early were sicker than the normal population

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/04/0...w-enrollees.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1&referrer=

 

[John Madden]

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatc...136-obamacare-premiums-are-about-to-skyrocket

Triple premium jump for some does not sound small

I'm seeing a whole lot of weasel words and not a lot of actual insurance executives owning the words they're saying.

(Ditto the second link, which doesn't actually link to any survey nor does it provide any articulation of its methodology.)

CBO's estimating 3% increases (as of more than a month since the publication of that article) and if anything, their predictions related to the ACA have been more pessimistic than reality.

Great they can qualify for Medicaid they just have to go through the hassle of it all and hope their current doctors take it

That is, once again, presuming that they actually lose their GHPs or cannot find comparable QHPs.

You falsely assume that the sign ups are proportionate with the population. In reality those that signed up early were sicker than the normal population

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/04/0...w-enrollees.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1&referrer=

"The study by Express Scripts looked at a sample of 650,000 consumers who received coverage in January and February and did not capture information about those who signed up closer to the enrollment deadline."

Wow, I sure hope I didn't already cite a study with data up to the beginning of this week!

Whoops, never mind, I already did.

That study better not say anything about the health of enrollees!

Frank Newport’s analysis of Gallup Daily tracking data shows that newly insured Americans are fairly evenly distributed across 18- to 64-year-olds, with a slight to moderate skew toward younger Americans aged 18 to 29 years. Using a measure of self-reported health status, Gallup found that the newly insured in 2014 mirror the health of the overall population, meaning they are neither sicker nor healthier.

Well, ****.

 

[WizardTrubbish]

Poll: Roberts would beat Sebelius in a landslide

Rasmussen tells us the obvious: Sebelius has no chance. She's so toxic Roberts scores 54% against her, even though 41% of Kansans never heard of him. I really hope she doesn't run, all she'd do is hurt our chances in the governors race where we actually have a chance.

Edit: Luckily it looks like she won't be running

 

[Maedar]

Poll: Roberts would beat Sebelius in a landslide

Rasmussen tells us the obvious: Sebelius has no chance. She's so toxic Roberts scores 54% against her, even though 41% of Kansans never heard of him. I really hope she doesn't run, all she'd do is hurt our chances in the governors race where we actually have a chance.

Edit: Luckily it looks like she won't be running

Obviously.

A Democrat win the Kansas Senate race? When pigs fly.

I may be optimistic, but there are limits.

 

[WizardTrubbish]

Obviously.

A Democrat win the Kansas Senate race? When pigs fly.

I may be optimistic, but there are limits.

A good candidate might be able to beat Wolf if he were successful in primarying Roberts, which I doubt, like how Donnelly beat Mourdock in India Indiana. And by good candidate, I mean anyone who's name isn't Kathleen Sebelius.

This also blows a huge his in the NYT's claim yesterday that Roberts was vulnerable.

 

[BigLutz]

I'm seeing a whole lot of weasel words and not a lot of actual insurance executives owning the words they're saying.

(Ditto the second link, which doesn't actually link to any survey nor does it provide any articulation of its methodology.)

CBO's estimating 3% increases (as of more than a month since the publication of that article) and if anything, their predictions related to the ACA have been more pessimistic than reality.

As you mention the CBO has been FAR from right here, but hey it's only insurance executives here, what do they know?

That is, once again, presuming that they actually lose their GHPs or cannot find comparable QHPs.

“The Departments’ mid-range estimate is that 66 percent of small employer plans and 45 percent of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfather status by the end of 2013,” wrote the administration on page 34,552 of the Register. All in all, more than half of employer-sponsored plans will lose their “grandfather status” and become illegal. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 156 million Americans—more than half the population—was covered by employer-sponsored insurance in 2013.

According to Obama's own people we are looking at practically half those on company's insurance losing their insurance when the Employer Mandate goes into effect.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...e-to-keep-their-health-plans-under-obamacare/

"The study by Express Scripts looked at a sample of 650,000 consumers who received coverage in January and February and did not capture information about those who signed up closer to the enrollment deadline."

Wow, I sure hope I didn't already cite a study with data up to the beginning of this week!

Whoops, never mind, I already did.

That study better not say anything about the health of enrollees!

Well, ****.

Missed the next paragraph didn'tcha?

"Julie Huppert, vice president for health care reform at Express Scripts, said she expected to see the picture change as the year progressed. But she said this early glimpse was crucial for insurers, which were already setting their rates for next year."

Insurance rates were expected to be set around March 15th, the Obama Administration had the deadline then but continued to push it back, however that does not mean the insurers did not finish setting their rates as of March 15th.

Also in other news...

The NRSC believes they now have more states in play specifically Colorado, New Hampshire, Virginia, Oregon and Minnesota

The Keystone XL Pipeline has been delayed AGAIN, which could hurt the chances of many red state dems up for reelection

Texas Tech poll now has Wendy Davis at 25% among registered voters

 

[WizardTrubbish]

The NRSC believes they now have more states in play specifically Colorado, New Hampshire, Virginia, Oregon and Minnesota

They aren't wrong about Colorado, but the idea that those other four states are potential pick ups for the GOP is laughable. While on paper they look like they could be in play, they simply aren't.

Merkley could be vulnerable under the prefect storm, Republicans don't have a very strong candidate here and Oregon is a reliably blue state.
While the 2008 election was extremely close, Franken is now one of the most popular senators running for reelection, and none of his opponent come close to him in the polls
Warner is one of the most popular incumbents in the country and the closest poll for this race I've seen was a 6-point lead in the right-leaning Harper's polling. Everyone else has him leading by up to 20 points
And don't get me started on New Hampshire. I know the media loves Scott Brown to death, but his odds of winning are about the same as Sebelius's would be. Sorry, but a blatant carpetbagger with a -10 approval isn't going to beat an incumbent with a +15 approval
But if Republicans want to focus on these races, be my guest. I'm cool with you taking away resources that could be used in competitive races.

 

[Silver Soul]

So word is out that they Tea Party groups such as FreedomWorks which is funded by the Koch Brothers, paid radio hosts Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, and Glenn Beck to be mouthpieces.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/tea-party-radio-network-105774.html?hp=l17

 

[BigLutz]

So word is out that they Tea Party groups such as FreedomWorks which is funded by the Koch Brothers, paid radio hosts Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, and Glenn Beck to be mouthpieces.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/tea-party-radio-network-105774.html?hp=l17

What a revelation! Companies sponsoring airtime to advertise with talk radio show hosts! Seriously Harry Reid and the far left are embarrassing themselves by their obsession with the Koch Brothers.

 

[WizardTrubbish]

They aren't wrong about Colorado, but the idea that those other four states are potential pick ups for the GOP is laughable. While on paper they look like they could be in play, they simply aren't.

Merkley could be vulnerable under the prefect storm, Republicans don't have a very strong candidate here and Oregon is a reliably blue state.
While the 2008 election was extremely close, Franken is now one of the most popular senators running for reelection, and none of his opponent come close to him in the polls
Warner is one of the most popular incumbents in the country and the closest poll for this race I've seen was a 6-point lead in the right-leaning Harper's polling. Everyone else has him leading by up to 20 points
And don't get me started on New Hampshire. I know the media loves Scott Brown to death, but his odds of winning are about the same as Sebelius's would be. Sorry, but a blatant carpetbagger with a -10 approval isn't going to beat an incumbent with a +15 approval
But if Republicans want to focus on these races, be my guest. I'm cool with you taking away resources that could be used in competitive races.

Also, to add to this, the NRSC seems awfully confident for a group that just released polls on six different races, five of them showing improvement for the Democrats

 

[Maedar]

They aren't wrong about Colorado, but the idea that those other four states are potential pick ups for the GOP is laughable. While on paper they look like they could be in play, they simply aren't.

That's the GOP's biggest flaw, and why Romney never even bothered to prepare a concession speech. They always prepare for the Best Case Scenario, and that is a terrible strategy. If things turn out badly, you aren't prepared, and you crash.

They're doing it again now. It's possible for them to pick up all those states, but unlikely. Still, they're preparing for the Best Case Scenario, certain they'll win it all.

It's better to prepare for the worst and hope for better. Being optimistic is okay, but never be so assured of victory that you start believing Fate will smile on you every single time, no matter what the odds. Just ask Romney - it won't.

Edit: And as I've said before, Rush Limbaugh is a know-nothing-no-it-all. He only thinks he's a pundit and an expert, when he has no more political education or experience than I do.

 

[BigLutz]

That's the GOP's biggest flaw, and why Romney never even bothered to prepare a concession speech. They always prepare for the Best Case Scenario, and that is a terrible strategy. If things turn out badly, you aren't prepared, and you crash.

They're doing it again now. It's possible for them to pick up all those states, but unlikely. Still, they're preparing for the Best Case Scenario, certain they'll win it all.

It's better to prepare for the worst and hope for better. Being optimistic is okay, but never be so assured of victory that you start believing Fate will smile on you every single time, no matter what the odds. Just ask Romney - it won't.

And why would the GOP put out a press release on the worst case scenario? I mean honestly wouldn't that be deflating to the base? It's like the Democrats putting out a release saying "Not only will we probably lose the Senate, but worse case scenario we lose a filibuster proof majority in the Senate!"

Edit: And as I've said before, Rush Limbaugh is a know-nothing-no-it-all. He only thinks he's a pundit and an expert, when he has no more political education or experience than I do.

Yet he makes tens of millions of dollars with millions of listeners, you may consider him a know-nothing, but he knows how to work a audience and get them to listen far more than any liberal talk show host on the market be it TV or Radio

 

[WizardTrubbish]

And why would the GOP put out a press release on the worst case scenario? I mean honestly wouldn't that be deflating to the base? It's like the Democrats putting out a release saying "Not only will we probably lose the Senate, but worse case scenario we lose a filibuster proof majority in the Senate!"

No, but they shouldn't be talking about how confident that they'll knock out safe incumbents. They should be talking about a realistic scenario. There's ten seats the GOP could realistically take: South Dakota, West Virginia, Montana, Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, Michigan, Alaska, Colorado, and Iowa. Saying that Scott Brown or Ed Gellespie will win is about as ridiculous as a Democrat saying that Wendy Davis will win.

 

[BigLutz]

No, but they shouldn't be talking about how confident that they'll knock out safe incumbents. They should be talking about a realistic scenario. There's ten seats the GOP could realistically take: South Dakota, West Virginia, Montana, Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, Michigan, Alaska, Colorado, and Iowa. Saying that Scott Brown or Ed Gellespie will win is about as ridiculous as a Democrat saying that Wendy Davis will win.

I dont think confident is the right word here, "interest" or "optimistic" would be better, as the memo goes to pretty good lengths to build the case for all the seats they see as potential pick ups.

Here is their view on Brown, with out the hyperlinks

" According to one poll, Brown has a lead in the race which is outside the margin of error (49% Brown – 44% Shaheen). In a state where President Obama has only one-third of voters approving of his job performance while 57% disapprove, that has to be a concern for DEMs.

Though Brown was not an official candidate during Q1, his fundraising operations from campaigns past will likely give Democrats nightmares. Brown raised nearly $18million in his first special election victory, and over $26million for his 2012 re-election efforts.

Shaheen raised $1.5million in Q1, and has $4.35million cash on hand."

and here is their view on Gellespie

" Virginia: Ed Gillespie’s decision to challenge Senator Mark Warner set this up as one of the marquee matchups of 2014. Upon jumping into the race, Ed raised over $300k in the first week, and prompted the UVA Center for Politics to downgrade their prediction of Warner’s chances.

Polling does currently give Democratic Senator Warner a lead, but more importantly, this is the type of environment that could leave him high and dry as Virginians get to know Gillespie. A majority of Virginia’s voters disapprove of Obama and disapprove of ObamaCare. Moreover, Warner is unable to break the 50% mark on the ballot.

Notably from the poll, to know Gillespie is to like him. Among those IND voters who do have an impression of him, he has a two-to-one favorable image (21% Fav – 10% Unfav).

Gillespie’s first quarter in the race saw him raise $2.2million. Keeping a low burn rate, he now has nearly $2million cash on hand.

Senator Warner brought in $2.7million in Q1, and has $8.8million cash on hand."

Alot of the memo seems to focus on Obama's Approval Ratings, this may be a major tactic we see in the fall, tying Democrats with a unpopular administration and a unpopular policy much like Democrats did in 2006 with Bush and Iraq.

 

[Maedar]

Yet he makes tens of millions of dollars with millions of listeners, you may consider him a know-nothing, but he knows how to work a audience and get them to listen far more than any liberal talk show host on the market be it TV or Radio

Lady Gaga makes even more than he does.

I rest my case.

Alot of the memo seems to focus on Obama's Approval Ratings, this may be a major tactic we see in the fall, tying Democrats with a unpopular administration and a unpopular policy much like Democrats did in 2006 with Bush and Iraq.

Only problem is, their approval rating is even worse.

 

[BigLutz]

Lady Gaga makes even more than he does.

I rest my case.

Lady Gaga doesn't do Political Talk Radio so it's a bad comparison already.

Only problem is, their approval rating is even worse.

Proof that each candidate has worse approval rating than Obama in that respective state?

 

[Maedar]

Proof that each candidate has worse approval rating than Obama in that respective state?

See this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...al-rating-in-44-years-by-environmental-group/

Forty-four years, that's a LONG time.

 

[BigLutz]

See this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...al-rating-in-44-years-by-environmental-group/

Forty-four years, that's a LONG time.

I will ask again: Proof that each candidate has worse approval rating than Obama in that respective state?