Larry

It is (or at least might be) a legit point. One of the selling points for getting people insured was the notion that people are going to the ER, for things that should be urgent care, because they couldn't go to urgent care. (Because urgent care requires payment, whereas the ER does not.) Now, what's missing, here, is WHY more people are going to the ER. Did more people go to the ER AND more people to urgent care? Did people buy coverage that doesn't cover the local urgent care? (Or is there some other kind of rationing going on? Does the urgent care have a policy of only taking three Obamacare patients per day, and after that, you're SOL?) Are people simply unaware that the urgent care option is now available?

Damn. Get people covered, and they actually see doctors?

So both the new PM and the rebel General Claim that they're going to fight terrorism? Here's hoping that they're both being honest, AND that "terrorism" does not mean "people opposed to me".

Coincidence?

Think Disney plans on getting their money back, that they spent buying Marvel and Lucasfilm?

I could see something like that working. There's a Trek book I've really, really, liked, called The Final Reflection. It's not considered cannon, because of how/when it was written, but I think it's a great story. It's Klingon-centered. And it's set around 50 years pre-Kirk, at the time of the first contact between the Federation and the klingons, Central character is Vrenn, a teenaged Klingon orphanwho makes good, so to speak, joins the Imperial Fleet, rises to Captain his own ship, and so on. He is assigned to a special mission, (When he receives his orders, and is informed that this mission requires volunteers, he reflects that often "most qualified for a special mission" means "most expendable", and that, if he declines to volunteer, then they will simply expend him, and call the next name on the list.), to travel to Earth and pick up the first Ambassador from the Federation to the Empire. I might even know of a good time to base such a series. In Enterprise, we had a pair of episodes that established why Kirk's Klingons looked different. There was a two-part episode of Enterprise where they revealed that the Klingons had learned about Kahn and company, and they thought that the idea of genetically engineering a race to be smarter, stronger, and more aggressive sounded like A Good Idea. So they stole some of the DNA from Kahn and Co, and began researching to see if it could be applied to Klingons. Since they didn't want to be bothered with creating test DNA, planting it into a zygote, and then waiting 20 years for it to grow up, to see if it worked, they embedded the Augment gene into a virus, allowing them to implant it into Klingon test subjects, and relitively quickly alter their DNA to include the Augment genes. Well, they succeeded in creating stronger, more intelligent, more aggressive Klingons. The DNA also made them look considerably more Human, but hey, that's an acceptable price for their new conquering army to pay. The virus became contagious. Klingons who weren't intentionally infected began turning into human-looking (and stronger, and more aggressive) Klingons. In the Enterprise episode, the Klingons were fighting the spread of the disease by wiping out anybody infected. But, the virus was slow acting. People didn't show symptoms till well after infection. So, the Klingons had begun wiling out the entire city of anybody infected. Then entire colony planets, to try to stop the spread of this "disease" which they had manufactured. The Enterprise episode revolved around a Klingon scientist kidnapping Dr. Phlox, and forcing him to help them try to design a virus-based "cure" for this "disease". Phlox was able to design a cure which canceled some of the symptoms of the disease. It reduced the gains in intelligence and aggression, but infected Klingons still wound up looking more Human. (Thus giving up the Klingons from Kirk's time, and explaining how Koor, Kang, and Koloth, the three Klingons from TOS, could show up on DS9, looking like "movie Klingons", instead of "TOS Klingons". Obviously, somewhere between Kirk and Picard, the Klingons managed to fully cure the "disease") Well, I've always thought that, somewhere during this period, when some Klingons have "cheese graters" on their heads, and others look like Fu Manchu, when "disease" is spreading through the Empire, when the Organian peace treaty hasn't been imposed, . . . . . We all know that somewhere in there, there's going to be a Klingon Civil War. (At least one.) Between the "real Klingons" and the "diseased Klingons". (They look like Humans. Ewww!!) You could have a series, set in that period. The Klingon Civil War. Klingons fighting each other can happen, without it really affecting anything in the Federation. (And thus, it doesn't disturb their sacred timeline.) We can introduce new species, from the other side of the Empire. Some of them may be Klingon opponents, others can be species the Klingons have conquered. And we can still do social commentary. Lots of opportunity to beat people over the head with how immoral things can happen, when you're willing to do anything, to win a war. I could see it working. (I'm not sure how long it would work, though. I could see people really enjoying a movie or three, set in that period. Maybe a year of TV episodes. But can they keep it interesting for a seven year TV series run?) I might even propose a tentative title. Kinda a takeoff on "Game of Thrones". (And a really big reference to the above-mentioned story that I liked so much.) "The Game of Empire".

Pointing out that non-network avenues seem to be becoming more viable, now days. HBO has produced some really successful series. And I'm wondering if Netflix might be about to reach a tipping point. I remember posting an article, a while back, that Disney had signed on to produce four "series" (13 episodes each), and a miniseries, around four lesser Marvel characters (the "flawed heroes of Hell's kitchen". Daredevil, I forget who else.), direct to Netflix. (Which also seems to be doing OK with "House of Cards".)

Deleted

Just a guess, I suspect that he is trying to point out that it is extremely unlikely that your policy contains a deductible of $2.51. This is such because deductibles tend to be round numbers, and much larger. (Like, $500 - $5,000) It is much more likely that you had a $2.51 copay, or a fee for something that was uncovered. At least, I assume that that is his problem with your claim, because that's what I read, when I read your post. (I simply didn't feel a compulsive need to attack somebody who said something positive about Obamacare, for using the wrong word.)

I observe that when your schtick consists of attacking things I haven't said, apparently it saves time to invent things that you claim I'm GOING to say, so you can attack them.

Actually, the things I've read say that the primary reason for it is the poor economy. Which is one reason why I didn't attempt to assign a reason for it. (See my recent post about the difficulty of trying to assign credit or blame solely to Obamacare). But I'm certain that you will be jumping up to attack the person kicking the "Obamacare is bad because it has not completely eliminated the growth in health care spending" can, (you know, the point I was actually making, instead of the one I didn't make, but you wish I did), real soon, now. You being such a stickler for argument accuracy, and all.

I sincerely promise that, if I wanted to learn how far lies would get someone, I would be looking to the Republican Party, and you, for my studies. Wow, look! A study which reveals that poor people tend to have worse health than richer people, ..... ANN ARBOR, Mich. — Surgery patients covered by Medicaid come into their operations with worse health, do worse afterward, stay in the hospital longer and find themselves back in the hospital more often than those covered by private insurance, a new analysis by University of Michigan Medical School researchers finds. ..... And twa wants us to conclude that this is Medicaid's fault.

False. The word "reduced" does require the comparison between two numbers. That's an inherent characteristic of the word. However, unless specified otherwise, it means "compared to the previous". Nothing "select" about it. Now, if someone were demanding that, instead of comparing it to the previous, we compare it to something else, then they would be comparing it to select years. But wait. Isn't that what you're doing? ---------- But, to try to tear things away from twa's attempt to divert the discussion away from Obamacare by posting deceptive sound bite after deceptive sound bite, knowing that they're unrelated and intentionally deceptive, in the hopes that people will waste a bunch of time pointing out that his deceptive sound bites are deceptive, let's actually stick to the topic of the thread. Yes, I assume that it is. I suspect that gravity is also still working, that the Earth is continuing to orbit the Sun, and that water is still wet. It also, last few years, has been growing at a historically low rate. But then, you knew that, which was why you decided not to support your claim (what's the matter? Couldn't find a source that didn't mention the historically low rate of growth?), and instead pull your second time this evening to attack Obamacare because it has not met an impossible-to-achieve goal. No, Obamacare has not single-handedly balanced the federal budget, eliminated all disease, caused total health care costs to go down, eliminated death, or destroyed all life in Texas.

Observing that it can be very difficult to look at something that has happened, (good or bad), and announce that it happened because of Obamacare. Even ion the case cited above, of people receiving billions in refund checks due to over charges, it's easy to look at that and say that said refunds wouldn't have happened without the law which mandates them. But is that the whole chain of cause and effect? For example, I will point out that the reason there were refunds was because the insurance company overcharged. It's possible that Obamacare was the reason for the overcharge. That the law's uncertainties and unpredictability made the insurance companies be overly nervous about potential future expenses, leading them to overcharge. Now, saying that without the law, the companies would have just kept that money? That's an easy cause and effect to demonstrate. Whereas whet I've tossed out is really conjectural. If somebody were to assert that Obamacare is to blame for the overcharges, I'd dismiss their claim as essentially impossible to prove. I'm just pointing out that even in a case like the refunds, where there's a clear cause and effect relationship staring us in the face, (the refunds are mandated by the new law), it's still difficult to make clear statements about the law's total effects.

Ah, got it. You want to repeal Obamacare (and increase the deficit), because Obamacare has not completely eliminated the federal deficit. Right? (Or, were you just flinging intentionally dishonest claims, again?) You feel like trying to explain what, exactly, the fact that the federal deficit has not been completely eliminated has to do with Obamacare? (You know, the thread you're attempting to hijack?)

Obamacare reduces the deficit. Remember? Keep spinning. Let us know when you actually have a point that you'd like to make.

Now that at least seems like a rather well supported claim. The amount if the rebates, themselves, is pretty guard to argue against. And it's seems pretty hard to argue against Obamacare being the causation. Yeah, I assume that $3B isn't really that big a number, in context. But it does seem to be much better supported than a lot of the claims I've been seeing made.

Thus making it a graph of costs, while ignoring benefits. I've READ the CLAIM that, if an American hits age 65, then his life expectancy is better than every country in the world, but one. (Sweden?). But I don't know if that claim is TRUE. I've only read it once, and I suspect that, if it were true, it would be a well used political talking point.

But life expectancy factors in the large numbers if Americans who die in their teens, from gunshots or car accidents. (Or military service). It includes babies born three months premature who die after 5 weeks.

OK, you've demonstrated that an 80 year old American spends more than an 80 year old German. The odds of either of them making it to 81 are . . . ?

As the draft approaches, I'm reflecting on previous drafts. And one thing that I figure is really likely to happen, (since it almost always happens), is . . . Somewhere on Day 3, the Redskins are gonna draft some guy that nobody's heard of. Three minutes later, somebody will post a YouTube link to some highlights. And a dozen people (including me) will get a Man Crush. I know it will happen to me. I'll look at those highlights, and I'll say "well, he sure looks good at (something), and we could really use that". Typically, the object of my Man Crush never even sees the field. Sometimes, he doesn't even make the final roster. Although sometimes there are spectacular exceptions. One of my late round man crushes was AlMo. I remember when must of ES opinion on him was "wasted pick. We're set at RB. Won't even make the roster", and my opinion was "well, he does seem to like hitting people. MAYBE he becomes a short yardage specialist. MAYBE even improves our red zone scoring percentage". Any way. Here's to man crush season.

Recall once reading the expression that some people are like blisters. They show up after the work is done.

I love the web page saying "I will ask you to please respect this".

Obama.

It's a chic flick.