Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Guys, remember to at least post more than a single video/image, you should try and add to the discussion as well, rather than just dumping videos, news articles and images.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/11/20 23:41:02
I wish I had time for all the game systems I own, let alone want to own...
The Boy is thinking iof pursuing a doctorate at MIT. If thats the kind of bank he can make while doing part time consulting...dude I am a happy man.
"Yes I'd like to go ahead and order my Vought Corsair. Yes in Navy Blue of course."
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Also, Vermont and South Carolina canceled Gruber's consulting contract recently.
Of course they did. Vermont is one of the most libertarian states in the country, and South Carolina is one of the more conservative ones. Retaining Gruber is bad PR, regardless of the legitimacy of any complaint against him.
But here's one Democrat Senator saying, "yeah, we lied":
How in the world did you get "Yeah, we lied." out of that? I mean, I know you tend reach a conclusion and then try your very best build a ramshackle case in support of it, but that interpretation is still a huge stretch.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/11/21 22:41:01
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Issa wrote:
Americans were told if they liked their plans and doctors, they could keep them. They were told the individual mandate wasn’t a tax. None of these were true.
Really Darrel? You're going try and argue that a Supreme Court ruling stating that a thing is a tax renders the initial position of the Democrats a lie?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: And like everything else that goes wrong, and goes public, Obama is only just hearing about this. Good thing that "some adviser who never worked on our staff expressed an opinion that I completely disagree with, in terms of the voters, is no reflection on the actual process that was run.”
A consultant is not a member of staff. And, more importantly, it is possible for someone to disregard a given person's opinion on matter X, while agreeing with their opinion on matter Y.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
"Yes I'd like to go ahead and order my Vought Corsair. Yes in Navy Blue of course."
You know, it only has a top speed of 425 mph (if you're talking the F4U-1D) in Navy Blue.... However, if you order it in Fire Engine Red, it bumps top speed to 430, and Dakka Red, the top speed is 450
"Yes I'd like to go ahead and order my Vought Corsair. Yes in Navy Blue of course."
You know, it only has a top speed of 425 mph (if you're talking the F4U-1D) in Navy Blue.... However, if you order it in Fire Engine Red, it bumps top speed to 430, and Dakka Red, the top speed is 450
Now thats executive thinking!
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
I think twitter hashtags are dumb... but, this... this is funny.
“#DemocratPrivilege”
Rather than talk about the liberal bias in the media, talk about how figures enjoy “Democratic Privilege.”
What allows the chief architect of a law to go around telling people he lied to stupid americans to sell it, without being covered by ABC, NBC News or MSNBC? Democratic Privilege.
What politician, for instance, could drive his car off a bridge, leave a young woman in the car as he escapes, not lift a finger to save her, and not even call the police when he had the opportunity, and still have a political career after that? Democratic Privilege.
By comparison Mitt Romney was excoriated for leaving a dog on the roof of his car, while the same media didn’t care that Obama ate a dog. Why? Democratic Privilege.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
whembly wrote: I think twitter hashtags are dumb... but, this... this is funny.
“#DemocratPrivilege”
Rather than talk about the liberal bias in the media, talk about how figures enjoy “Democratic Privilege.”
What allows the chief architect of a law to go around telling people he lied to stupid americans to sell it, without being covered by ABC, NBC News or MSNBC? Democratic Privilege.
What politician, for instance, could drive his car off a bridge, leave a young woman in the car as he escapes, not lift a finger to save her, and not even call the police when he had the opportunity, and still have a political career after that? Democratic Privilege.
By comparison Mitt Romney was excoriated for leaving a dog on the roof of his car, while the same media didn’t care that Obama ate a dog. Why? Democratic Privilege.
Ooo, I got one!
Why can both prominent Clinton's get away with lying under oath?
Democratic privilege!
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
What allows the chief architect of a law to go around telling people he lied to stupid americans to sell it, without being covered by ABC, NBC News or MSNBC? Democratic Privilege.
I don't think anyone has claimed Gruber was the chief architect of Obaamcare.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
What allows the chief architect of a law to go around telling people he lied to stupid americans to sell it, without being covered by ABC, NBC News or MSNBC? Democratic Privilege.
I don't think anyone has claimed Gruber was the chief architect of Obaamcare.
You're not going to spin this away dogma.
He was integral part of the "team" in the genesis of that plan.
He was integral part of the "team" in the genesis of that plan.
I am simply stating that I do not think anyone has claimed Gruber was the chief architect of Obamacare, at least aside from you in the post I previously quoted. This is not an attempt to spin anything away, it is an attempt to lead you back to honesty.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
By the time he had this, he had already personally counseled Obama in the Oval Office and served on Obama’s presidential transition team.
He also personally counselled Mitt Romney, I'm not sure why location matters.
Also, you're basically ripping your opinion from The Daily Caller author Patrick Cowley, who can't manage to effectively support his own article (probably because he's ripping his own opinion from other people); you should stop that.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
I just want my pound-o-flesh and the ACA repealed.*
*then we're on our way to the Canadian Model.
Meh... I'd rather have something closer to the German model (though my view of it may be completely wrong... so German posters could shed some light on it if need be)
Gruber comments that Obama knew that there were no cost controls via the PPACA...
Therefore, we all should conclude that Obama's promise that a family would save $2500/yr was a willful, manipulative lie.
Not a "white lie" that many would have us believe.
*shrug*
Nothing really grand shattering though... we'll have to wait until March when Gruber would likely testify in front of the Supreme Court in the Halbig case.
WASHINGTON — For years, Harvard’s experts on health economics and policy have advised presidents and Congress on how to provide health benefits to the nation at a reasonable cost. But those remedies will now be applied to the Harvard faculty, and the professors are in an uproar.
Members of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, the heart of the 378-year-old university, voted overwhelmingly in November to oppose changes that would require them and thousands of other Harvard employees to pay more for health care. The university says the increases are in part a result of the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act, which many Harvard professors championed.
Continue reading the main story
RELATED COVERAGE
Roberto Villacreses of Sunshine Life and Health Advisors with Darko Tomelic and Andrea Viteri recently at a Miami mall.Health Insurance Enrollment Strongest in Federal MarketplaceDEC. 30, 2014
Agents from Sunshine Life and Health Advisors helped customers sign up for health care in Miami this month.So Far, 6.4 Million Obtain Health Care Coverage for 2015 in Federal MarketplaceDEC. 23, 2014
Obama Administration to Investigate Insurers for Bias Against Costly ConditionsDEC. 22, 2014
The faculty vote came too late to stop the cost increases from taking effect this month, and the anger on campus remains focused on questions that are agitating many workplaces: How should the burden of health costs be shared by employers and employees? If employees have to bear more of the cost, will they skimp on medically necessary care, curtail the use of less valuable services, or both?
“Harvard is a microcosm of what’s happening in health care in the country,” said David M. Cutler, a health economist at the university who was an adviser to President Obama’s 2008 campaign. But only up to a point: Professors at Harvard have until now generally avoided the higher expenses that other employers have been passing on to employees. That makes the outrage among the faculty remarkable, Mr. Cutler said, because “Harvard was and remains a very generous employer.”
In Harvard’s health care enrollment guide for 2015, the university said it “must respond to the national trend of rising health care costs, including some driven by health care reform,” in the form of the Affordable Care Act. The guide said that Harvard faced “added costs” because of provisions in the health care law that extend coverage for children up to age 26, offer free preventive services like mammograms and colonoscopies and, starting in 2018, add a tax on high-cost insurance, known as the Cadillac tax.
Richard F. Thomas, a Harvard professor of classics and one of the world’s leading authorities on Virgil, called the changes “deplorable, deeply regressive, a sign of the corporatization of the university.”
Mary D. Lewis, a professor who specializes in the history of modern France and has led opposition to the benefit changes, said they were tantamount to a pay cut. “Moreover,” she said, “this pay cut will be timed to come at precisely the moment when you are sick, stressed or facing the challenges of being a new parent.”
The university is adopting standard features of most employer-sponsored health plans: Employees will now pay deductibles and a share of the costs, known as coinsurance, for hospitalization, surgery and certain advanced diagnostic tests. The plan has an annual deductible of $250 per individual and $750 for a family. For a doctor’s office visit, the charge is $20. For most other services, patients will pay 10 percent of the cost until they reach the out-of-pocket limit of $1,500 for an individual and $4,500 for a family.
Previously, Harvard employees paid a portion of insurance premiums and had low out-of-pocket costs when they received care.
Michael E. Chernew, a health economist and the chairman of the university benefits committee, which recommended the new approach, acknowledged that “with these changes, employees will often pay more for care at the point of service.” In part, he said, “that is intended because patient cost-sharing is proven to reduce overall spending.”
The president of Harvard, Drew Gilpin Faust, acknowledged in a letter to the faculty that the changes in health benefits — though based on recommendations from some of the university’s own health policy experts — were “causing distress” and had “generated anxiety” on campus. But she said the changes were necessary because Harvard’s health benefit costs were growing faster than operating revenues or staff salaries and were threatening the budget for other priorities like teaching, research and student aid.
In response, Harvard professors, including mathematicians and microeconomists, have dissected the university’s data and question whether its health costs have been growing as fast as the university says. Some created spreadsheets and contended that the university’s arguments about the growth of employee health costs were misleading. In recent years, national health spending has been growing at an exceptionally slow rate.
In addition, some ideas that looked good to academia in theory are now causing consternation. In 2009, while Congress was considering the health care legislation, Dr. Alan M. Garber — then a Stanford professor and now the provost of Harvard — led a group of economists who sent an open letter to Mr. Obama endorsing cost-control features of the bill. They praised the Cadillac tax as a way to rein in health costs and premiums.
Dr. Garber, a physician and health economist, has been at the center of the current Harvard debate. He approved the changes in benefits, which were recommended by a committee that included university administrators and experts on health policy.
In an interview, Dr. Garber acknowledged that Harvard employees would face greater cost-sharing, but he defended the changes. “Cost-sharing, if done appropriately, can slow the growth of health spending,” he said. “We need to be prepared for the very real possibility that health expenditure growth will take off again.”
But Jerry R. Green, a professor of economics and a former provost who has been on the Harvard faculty for more than four decades, said the new out-of-pocket costs could lead people to defer medical care or diagnostic tests, causing more serious illnesses and costly complications in the future.
“It’s equivalent to taxing the sick,” Professor Green said. “I don’t think there’s any government in the world that would tax the sick.”
Meredith B. Rosenthal, a professor of health economics and policy at the Harvard School of Public Health, said she was puzzled by the outcry. “The changes in Harvard faculty benefits are parallel to changes that all Americans are seeing,” she said. “Indeed, they have come to our front door much later than to others.”
But in her view, there are drawbacks to the Harvard plan and others like it that require consumers to pay a share of health care costs at the time of service. “Consumer cost-sharing is a blunt instrument,” Professor Rosenthal said. “It will save money, but we have strong evidence that when faced with high out-of-pocket costs, consumers make choices that do not appear to be in their best interests in terms of health.”
Harvard’s new plan is far more generous than plans sold on public insurance exchanges under the Affordable Care Act. Harvard says its plan pays 91 percent of the cost of services for the covered population, while the most popular plans on the exchanges, known as silver plans, pay 70 percent, on average, reflecting their "actuarial value.”
"None of us who protested was motivated by our own bottom line so much as by the principle,” Ms. Lewis said, expressing concern about the impact of the changes on lower-paid employees.
In many states, consumers have complained about health plans that limit their choice of doctors and hospitals. Some Harvard employees have said they will gladly accept a narrower network of health care providers if it lowers their costs. But Harvard’s ability to create such networks is complicated by the fact that some of Boston’s best-known, most expensive hospitals are affiliated with Harvard Medical School. To create a network of high-value providers, Harvard would probably need to exclude some of its own teaching hospitals, or discourage their use.
“Harvard employees want access to everything,” said Dr. Barbara J. McNeil, the head of the health care policy department at Harvard Medical School and a member of the benefits committee. “They don’t want to be restricted in what institutions they can get care from.”
Although out-of-pocket costs over all for a typical Harvard employee are to increase in 2015, administrators said premiums would decline slightly. They noted that the university, which has an endowment valued at more than $36 billion, had an unusual program to provide protection against high out-of-pocket costs for employees earning $95,000 a year or less. Still, professors said the protections did not offset the new financial burdens that would fall on junior faculty and lower-paid staff members.
“It seems that Harvard is trying to save money by shifting costs to sick people,” said Mary C. Waters, a professor of sociology. “I don’t understand why a university with Harvard’s incredible resources would do this. What is the crisis?”
whembly wrote: So you have no problem, whatsoever, that the tactic used in the creation/pass/defend this bill?
Will all the lies, misdirection and manipulation??
It seemed to me more a case of apathy than lies, misdirection and manipulation. People saying "you have to pass the bill to know what's in it". Combined with someone saying "I'm not paid to read that" iirc. To me that was the tactic to create/pass/defend the bill - relying on no-one giving a ****. The democrats had the majority - the **** was passed.
edit: bad quote day
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/06 03:54:56
So you have no problem, whatsoever, that the tactic used in the creation/pass/defend this bill?
Will all the lies, misdirection and manipulation??
I have a problem with outright lies because I think they're sloppy, but misdirection and manipulation are just part and parcel when it comes to politics in a democracy; especially one as large as the US.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
1500pt
2500pt 
