#53314 May 14, 2014
Black unemployment, Dept. Of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics..... 11.4%......... Much higher than when Bush was president.
Lies, damn lies, and statistics?:-)
#53315 May 14, 2014
I think TSF only prints partial bills.
#53316 May 14, 2014
"RAND Comes Clean: Obamacare's Exchanges Enrolled Only 1.4 Million Previously Uninsured Individuals" "Last week, I wrote about an article in the Los Angeles Times, on a then-as-yet unpublished report from the RAND Corporation. The report indicated that only one-third of Obamacare’s purported 7.1 million exchange sign-ups were from the previously uninsured. But Noam Levey, the author of the Times article, didn’t disclose RAND’s actual findings as to the actual number of previously uninsured exchange enrollees. Well, now we know why. RAND published the full report yesterday; it indicates that Obamacare’s exchanges only enrolled 1.4 million previously uninsured individuals. That 1.4 million is out of a total of 3.9 million exchange enrollees overall. That is to say, a little over a third of enrollees—36 percent—were previously uninsured. RAND’s figures don’t take into account the last few weeks of the Obamacare open enrollment period, and they contain a substantial margin of error, due to the study’s small sample size.(RAND surveyed 2,425 individuals aged 18 to 64; the 1.4 million figure has a margin of error of 700,000, meaning that there is a 95 percent probability that the actual number is between 700,000 and 2.1 million previously uninsured enrollees.) If you assume that 80 percent of signer-uppers will eventually pay their premiums, the true number of previously uninsured exchange enrollees is likely closer to 2 million. That’s far from what the Congressional Budget Office has projected; the CBO estimated that 80 to 90 percent of the first-year enrollees would come from the previously uninsured population. Instead, it appears to be more like 24 to 36 percent. Because the RAND survey is quite small—a comparable survey by the U.S. Census Bureau surveys around 250,000 individuals—its results aren’t as reliable. But the RAND authors, Katherine Grace Carman and Christine Eibner, perform a useful service, because they break out how people of varying insurance statuses in 2013 fared in 2014. For example, of the 40.7 million people they consider to have been uninsured in 2013, RAND can break out the fraction of those who gained insurance via the exchanges, via Medicaid, via employer-sponsored insurance, et al. RAND finds that, overall, 9.3 million more U.S. residents have health insurance in 2014 relative to 2013. That figure has a margin of error of 3.5 million. But that’s not the interesting part. The interesting part is that 8.2 million of that comes from growth in employer-sponsored insurance. Labor force participation has been steadily declining, especially among younger individuals, which would seemingly make this result unlikely. Other surveys from ADP and Aon Hewitt have found that employer-sponsored coverage among the young has been flat to down. On the other hand, it’s theoretically possible that Obamacare’s individual and employer mandates have convinced millions of Americans to sign up for health insurance. But those mandates have been repeatedly delayed and laced with loopholes and exceptions. A third possibility is that RAND’s survey is simply inaccurate. The authors note that “people may not report having Medicaid because their state uses a different name for the program or because they do not understand the true source of their insurance.” We just don’t know. Notably, RAND finds that outside of employer-sponsored insurance, Obamacare’s impact on the uninsured has been minimal thus far—a net of 1.1 million between Medicaid (+5.9 million), the exchanges (+3.9 million), off-exchange individually-purchased insurance (-1.6 million), and other forms of insurance, such as coverage for federal employees and the military (-7.1 million). It’s hard to know what to make of these findings. On the one hand, it’s concerning that many people have lost other kinds of insurance and gone onto Medicaid. On the other hand, many people appear to have moved onto higher-quality, employer-sponsored plans." "Lies damn lies and stats"
#53317 May 14, 2014
You've provided yet another FINE example of Right Wing hypocrisy when you criticize people for "living in the past" while going back DECADES in the past to find all your rebuttals.
Apparently you ALSO slept through Reagan's stupid "war on drugs".....which was much more recent history.
#53318 May 14, 2014
So? She wasn't the president who sold Congress a pack of lies. She wasn't the president who LIED to the American people. She wasn't the president who cooked up the whole pile of BS to start a war that the Bush cabal planned on starting BEFORE Bush even was appointed president by the screwy right wing of the Supreme court.
Your point is moot. I realize that you can't recognize that fact. Those who just repeat RW talking points often have trouble grasping important details that prove their argument ridiculous.
#53319 May 14, 2014
Certainly, my point was/is anything but moot.
Your democrat heroine voted to invade Iraq.
That's a fact.
No one put a gun to her head, she made that decision herself, with a lot of other politicians on both sides.
Can't have it both ways.
#53320 May 14, 2014
Correct. She WAS the sec of st "who cooked up the whole pile of BS " about a "video" while Americans were being killed. Talk about "moot". "you can't recognize that fact",.
#53321 May 14, 2014
I find it odd that you had no comment on my comments regarding the Reagan tax reductions.
If you're going to go back in time to criticize Bush for Iraq, I imagine that I can go to the same time period and bring up Hillary.
Your reasoning is imperfect.
My opinion on Reagan's" war on drugs "echoes my opinion on the Reagan tax cuts.
Unlike you, I never march in lock step with any political party.
#53322 May 14, 2014
Thirteen reasons why Republicans are hypocrites when it comes to Benghazi.....all happened while George W. Bush was president and the Republicans weren't worried one damn bit.
Neither were the Republicans worried when they denied the additional funding request for extra security in Benghazi. Republicans are political theater-loving hypocrites who dupe those who are their faithful blind lemmings.
January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.
June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al-Qaida attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.
October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of “Bali Bombings.”
February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.
May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al-Qaida terrorists storm the diplomatic compound killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.
July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.
December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaida terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.
March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what’s considered American soil.
September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting “Allahu akbar” storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.
January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.
March 18, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaida-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.
July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.
September 17, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred).
Republicans = Hypocrites.
#53323 May 14, 2014
Victoria's comments would be well taken, except for the fact that no one tried to cover those attacks up to preserve their foreign policy shortcomings.
#53324 May 14, 2014
Shall we check out the other terrorist attacks on Americans during the Carter and Clinton years?
Not to mention, Obama?
#53325 May 14, 2014
Victoria you've answered with no substance, only infantile prattling.
You are truly remarkable.
#53326 May 14, 2014
The Benghazi attack was well known through out the World the following morning. The republican claim of a cover up is as stupid as the republikans themselves.
First , there was the contention that Obama did not call them terrorist That was instantly proven false, but the republican morons continued assisting the enemy by trying to insisting that he didn't call them terrorist.
Now they pretend to be outraged about the REASON the TERRORIST attacked. Other than hating Americans, including republikans, the actual reason is still unknown. If there is a foreign policy that would prevent terrorist from hating Americans who torture prisoners in an improved return to dark ages by using electrodes and high voltage on prisoner's genitals, please announce that policy.
The picture of the poor hooded bastard at Abu Ghraib with wires hanging off his penis and testicles will haunt America for centuries to come. Now that was a foreign policy failure, which in the eyes of the World portrayed America as demented evil infidels. That took the USA from the moral high ground to the moral sewer. Now republikans ask; WTF? Why do they hate us?
TERRORIST hate Americans, that includes republican Americans. The blame America republican crowd continue to aid and render assistance to the enemy by encouraging them to carry out more attacks
#53327 May 14, 2014
The video explanation was a theory about why. With 23 other middles Eastern cities experiencing simultaneous riots because of the video, a reasonable person might initially think there was a connection. Suppose you explain exactly why the Terrorist attacked at Benghazi.
#53328 May 14, 2014
The real reason our people died at Benghazi was because of inadequate security. Lets see here: What political party had only months before drastically cut funding for embassy security?. There is plenty of blame to go around, so why not give credit where credit is due?
#53329 May 14, 2014
I.C.E, at the direction of the president of the United States of America, has released 36,000 illegal aliens from custody.
These people had a total of 87,000 felonies, including 200 for murder.
That is here, and now.
Not ten years ago.
Not twenty years ago.
#53330 May 14, 2014
If I were the Democrats on the committee, I would make a big poster listing all of the attacks and the number of people killed during Bush II's administration. Ole Trey would have a meltdown. Love to see that.
If Mitt had won the righties wouldn't being talking about alternative UE figures. They'd be saying Look how the numbers are coming down!!
#53331 May 14, 2014
Victoria is right that the abuse of our LAW regarding US citizens became common practice during the Bush II years. Before that, even back in the Regan days
foreign nationals who were dangerous to the USA occasionally got
mysteriously dusted by lone snipers working from 600+ yards
#53332 May 14, 2014
Clinton had the authority to increase security at Benghazi.
She was the Secretary of State.
The man, Stevens, had requested this aid repeatedly.
Clinton did not respond.
There are questions as to whether her assistants actually forwarded the requests to Clinton.
In any event, saying that there was no money in the budget for Stevens and the others to be protected is disingenuous.
My own feeling is that Clinton never read the pleas for help.
Bureaucracy is a terrible thing.
I might point out that the man the liberals love to hate, Bill O'Reilly, has said that he finds no evidence whatsoever that either Clinton or Obama was to blame for Benghazi itself.
#53333 May 14, 2014
I'm pretty sure we could make a nice little poster with Clinton (Bill}, and Carter, and Reagan and the Bush guys as well.
What's your point?
None of the aforementioned presidents tried to deflect the facts regarding the attacks they experienced .
Add your comments below
|Debate: Marijuana - Rutherfordton, NC (May '12)||6 hr||george orwell||14|
|Wilbert Plastics||Mar 12||Rudy||3|
|old hollis school fire? (Feb '10)||Feb '15||longtime hollis n...||11|
|Bobby dean howard and amanda howard||Feb '15||Carolina1775||1|
|Woman Sentenced For Store Clerk's Murder (Jul '07)||Jan '15||Pamela||2|
|Capital murder trial set to begin (Mar '06)||Jan '15||Lokita||23|
|NC church members facing charges in beating of ...||Jan '15||just curious||12|
Find what you want!
Search Spindale Forum Now
Copyright © 2015 Topix LLC