Meh..just for this quote, you're not invited to the two plus two freeroll that I would throw.

The point is there are too many kids on this site with alot of posts that think they know everything and they dont. Also you dont see the "blank" responding back anymore, do you? Checkmate.

Cmon, class warfare really??

Cant ****ing wait for the romney/obama debates. People forget that obama only got 52% of the popular vote 4 yrs ago against that POS mccain. For those who cant do the math, that means that 48% DID NOT VOTE for obama.

Romney>Mccain...november going to be fun.

Just wasn't going to bother responding to someone who has the idiotic notion that you can identify someone personally by their IP address.

Thought that was proof enough that I was right, but I guess successful business owners could be complete tards when it comes to technology.

Actually, if you start in a 401k young with a reasonably responsible job (like truck driver or mechanic), its not unlikely to be a millionaire when you retire. Funny that's the standard though, since its just about enough to support a lower middle class life until your lifespan is up

Romney can't connect with anyone; for that reason he won't be president.

My name is mike..i moved from yonkers 2 yrs ago. Im sure the mavens here can easily match up my ip with who its registered to.

You still dodging or are you going to "fill in the blank" now? The two plus two community is eagerly awaiting a possible freeroll.

Look at your post #20176...I'm just taking you up on your bet.

And obama does?

Oh..I forgot..he does connect with the ever expanding food stamp community, the 99 week unemployment community and the ever expanding people who dont pay fed tax community.

When you add all that up it comes to 145% of the population. Holy christ.

Edit: You're right..romney might not get a single popular vote

all those people plus me too.

This is a good Fermi question. "How many people named Mike do you think live in Yonkers?"



Asking "How many moved out two years ago?" seems too tricky, though.

Man Obamacare has been such a bummer. Remember how awesome it was when insurance companies imposed lifetime caps on benefits? Even more awesome was when insurance companies denied people coverage for pre-existing conditions.

When were living in the awesomeness of lifetime caps preemies frequently used their entire lifetime's worth of benefits before leaving the hospital for the first time.

Santorum's comm director can't be older than 15 (Hogan something)

Now they're just leeching off the system...get a job preemies!

I've never paid attention to ObamaCare. Who pays for the people with preexisting conditions?

You do.

What does that mean? They have insurance coverage now. Everyone pays a slightly higher premium and in exchange if they get sick and end up wanting to change jobs/insurance companies they can, or if they just want a new insurance company it's an option.

What I mean is, they're presumably paying lower premiums than what would be actuarily fair. Someone's worse off here.

People without pre-existing conditions are slightly worse off. I was pointing out that it's not all downside because even if you don't have a pre-existing condition now you could easily end up with one at some point.

I presume insurance companies are worse off too, because demand for insurance isn't perfectly inelastic, they can't just "pass on all costs" to their policyholders. This might be off-set by other aspects of the bill, I dunno, but those parts too would have losers.

The reason I bring it up is akin to this argument against the minimum wage - it's a stealth tax on select groups when your goals could be achieved with a broad-based tax and subsidy scheme. If you care about people with pre-existing conditions, give people with them a subsidy sufficient enough to pay for insurance. Of course, that would appear to increase government spending (and taxes) and hence be unpopular.

You're only looking at one side of the equation and not thinking about the shape of a medical care/cost utility curve.

a) people who need health insurance/care can get it
b) what happens when someone with a pre-existing condition gets incurs big emergency medical and can't afford to pay (but could hvae afforded insurance) we all pay, and we pay the doctor's billed amounts not the amount the insurance companies have negotiated for.

That isn't specific to people with pre-existing conditions. It's a problem with providing de facto public healthcare in an inefficient way, which can be solved by requiring people to buy health insurance as Obamacare does. It might apply to disproportionately more people with pre-existing conditions, but there's nothing fundamentally different between them and anyone else who choses not to buy health insurance.

Except before there were people with pre-existing conditions who literally could not buy health insurance.

I'm not even sure what argument you're making to be honest. You don't seem to understand that you could easily become 'them.' I would like to live in a society where there is shared risk for massive medical costs. It's a concept people have a surprisingly hard time understanding for a poker forum. I'm happy to pay a little extra in taxes or insurance premiums because I know that people will randomly get cancer or have accidents or whatever and that might be me. If it is I'll be very glad to have diluted the risk so much. If it's not me even better because it doesn't mean I have cancer.

I bet it was worth ever penny.

Yeah, that is exactly how elections work. You got this one figured out fella.

If only the GOP had Romney in 2008 they could've prevented this whole Obama debacle.