TenuredVulture wrote:I think there's something to be said for the Reps nominating the whitest candidate. And of the leading contenders this time, there is none whiter than Rand Paul. He's not as white as Romney, but he's still pretty white.

TenuredVulture wrote:Remember a few years ago, I predicted (sort of jokingly) that Michelle Bachmann would be the GOP nominee for Pres, and JH said I was nuts, and then she did better than anyone (other than of course me) expected?

Rand Paul is in a lot bettter shape now than Bachmann was when I made that prediction.

I think there's something to be said for the Reps nominating the whitest candidate. And of the leading contenders this time, there is none whiter than Rand Paul. He's not as white as Romney, but he's still pretty white.

jerseyhoya wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Remember a few years ago, I predicted (sort of jokingly) that Michelle Bachmann would be the GOP nominee for Pres, and JH said I was nuts, and then she did better than anyone (other than of course me) expected?

Rand Paul is in a lot bettter shape now than Bachmann was when I made that prediction.

I think there's something to be said for the Reps nominating the whitest candidate. And of the leading contenders this time, there is none whiter than Rand Paul. He's not as white as Romney, but he's still pretty white.

She peaked in the polling averages in June/July 2011 around 13%. She got less than 5% of the vote in the Iowa caucuses.

kruker wrote:

pacino wrote:Holder's pretty terrible in every respect, but the only things people in DC seem to care about are partisan things. if this is what takes him down, fine. let's get someone who will actually prosecute some people in that role.

You don't have to look far to see this.

Werthless wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:I think there's something to be said for the Reps nominating the whitest candidate. And of the leading contenders this time, there is none whiter than Rand Paul. He's not as white as Romney, but he's still pretty white.

What does this mean? Pigment of skin? Level of wealth? Immigration policy? Educational attainment? Appeal to whites? Something else?

Houshphandzadeh wrote:my uncle has worked for the IRS for thirty years or so and says for the past five they're so understaffed and under-resourced they can't do a damn thing right

pacino wrote:

kruker wrote:

pacino wrote:Holder's pretty terrible in every respect, but the only things people in DC seem to care about are partisan things. if this is what takes him down, fine. let's get someone who will actually prosecute some people in that role.

You don't have to look far to see this.

Yes, im incredibly partisan with defending this administration...

TenuredVulture wrote:Romney-Kerry-McCain-Bush-Obama-B. Clinton

kruker wrote:

pacino wrote:

kruker wrote:

pacino wrote:Holder's pretty terrible in every respect, but the only things people in DC seem to care about are partisan things. if this is what takes him down, fine. let's get someone who will actually prosecute some people in that role.

You don't have to look far to see this.

Yes, im incredibly partisan with defending this administration...

Yea...not aimed at you.

Barry Jive wrote:dunno how i'll survive losing my job if i have to pay for some old wealthy person to go to the hospital

Obamacare limits the amount insurers can charge older enrollees to three times the amount charged for younger participants. It's now common to see older folks charged five times that of their younger peers.
"Younger people will have to offset costs of those who are older," said Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, a lobbying group for insurers.

Werthless wrote:

td11 wrote:^from this CNN Money piece in case anyone else was curious.

Many groups have come out with reports forecasting what will happen to premiums, on average, next year. But just what folks will pay for insurance on the individual market depends on a variety of factors. They include the enrollee's income, age, gender, current coverage level and state of residence.

"The average isn't very relevant to any particular person," said Jim O'Connor, principal at consulting firm Milliman, who authored a report on how "Obamacare" will affect premiums.

...

At this point, everyone -- including the insurers -- is just guessing at what premiums should be. That makes next year a giant experiment. Will younger, healthier people purchase coverage, or will they skip it and simply pay the fine? Next year, the fine starts at $95 per adult -- a rate likely to be cheaper than any individual plan available on the state exchanges.

sounds like no one has any idea!

"Having no idea" is much different from what that article says, that projecting the rate increases based off of surveys of insurance providers.

I will now quote from your article:

Obamacare limits the amount insurers can charge older enrollees to three times the amount charged for younger participants. It's now common to see older folks charged five times that of their younger peers.
"Younger people will have to offset costs of those who are older," said Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, a lobbying group for insurers.
...
Currently insurers can charge premiums based on gender. Men usually pay less than women, since they typically visit the doctor less frequently. The Affordable Care Act, however, doesn't allow insurers to charge different rates to men and women.
Taken together, men ages 25 to 36 could see rate increases greater than 50%, according to Milliman's O'Connor, but women of the same age will only see their premiums creep up 4%. Meanwhile, men age 60 to 64 could see their premiums drop by 12%.
...

Congrats to the folks on this board, largely young men... if you purchase healthcare individually, or if you lose your job, you'll no longer pay lower insurance costs reflective of your risk.

Thanks Obama.

TenuredVulture wrote:Even if true, it's basically just shifting costs from one point in your life to another. Since you'll either get old, or you'll die (in which case you're likely to have significant medical expenses before they finally pull the plug) from an age perspective you're not getting screwed as much as it seems. You pay more now, but less later.

Werthless wrote:

Barry Jive wrote:dunno how i'll survive losing my job if i have to pay for some old wealthy person to go to the hospital

Obamacare limits the amount insurers can charge older enrollees to three times the amount charged for younger participants. It's now common to see older folks charged five times that of their younger peers.
"Younger people will have to offset costs of those who are older," said Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, a lobbying group for insurers.

Old person subsidy, having nothing to do with income/wealth of the recipient. And since wealth is higher among older people, on average, it will be the a subsidy of people wealthier than you.

Older Americans, who tend to be sicker, will likely see their premiums go down, because they will now be mixed into a risk pool with younger, healthier people. Also, Obamacare limits the amount insurers can charge older enrollees to three times the amount charged for younger participants. It's now common to see older folks charged five times that of their younger peers.