djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 3, 2014 11:25:11 GMT -5
That's honestly a very shabby line of argument. . then give me dishonesty.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on May 15, 2014 10:35:48 GMT -5
Interestingly, the law is still in shambles. The law still cannot be practically fully implemented. And it never will be. Ever. Anyone want to make me a $1 bet?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 15, 2014 11:02:58 GMT -5
Interestingly, the law is still in shambles. The law still cannot be practically fully implemented. And it never will be. Ever. Anyone want to make me a $1 bet? no, not really. the GOP seems unrelentingly hell bent on appeal. until that stops, all bets are off.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on May 15, 2014 11:20:43 GMT -5
Interestingly, the law is still in shambles. The law still cannot be practically fully implemented. And it never will be. Ever. Anyone want to make me a $1 bet? no, not really. the GOP seems unrelentingly hell bent on appeal. until that stops, all bets are off. Well, actually the GOP doesn't want to repeal the law. The establishment is pretty excited about it. They can allocate some of the slush fund, pull some strings here and there-- kind of like amnesty, the income tax, social security, medicare, and other failed laws, and government programs.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 15, 2014 11:45:05 GMT -5
no, not really. the GOP seems unrelentingly hell bent on appeal. until that stops, all bets are off. Well, actually the GOP doesn't want to repeal the law. The establishment is pretty excited about it. They can allocate some of the slush fund, pull some strings here and there-- kind of like amnesty, the income tax, social security, medicare, and other failed laws, and government programs. not really hearing that excitement. all i hear is repeal.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 15, 2014 14:06:05 GMT -5
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on May 15, 2014 22:38:45 GMT -5
The more I read about it the more I hate it- yet I strongly support many provisions of it. What a bad move to let the insurance companies write it and jettison the only thing that would have brought costs down.
I looked into what another poster was claiming on another thread about the individual exchange plans- had some serious doubts- and turns out they were right to be pissed off about parts of it. The low level plans SUCK when it comes to basic healthcare.
But on the other side- people fighting the law wanting to keep their plans were arguing to keep even shittier ones.
Count me as one of the people that hate Obamacare as a solution but will take it over anything the GOP has offered so far- er- actually this is what the GOP offered a while back
The fix is coming state by state- maybe we end up with 50 single payer systems- sounds good to me.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on May 16, 2014 9:09:48 GMT -5
I would be most interested in hearing how most here who support a single payer system envision how that would work. Whether it be state by state or at the federal level? What type of tax would pay for it and on who would you impose it? Who would operate the system? Who would define the benefits and would you like unlimited access to all available medical services for everyone? Would doctors and healthcare employees be government employees? Would the hospitals and offices be government owned? Would the government do all of the research and development for new technology? Would they own the patents and apporove new drugs and procedures? I would personally have real concerns with our government getting this involved with our medical system simply because their record for efficient delivery of service has not been that good on any other program they manage. Secondly medical care is important to a society but maybe not as critical as food and shelter. Would we want to make them single payer also?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 16, 2014 10:58:08 GMT -5
I would be most interested in hearing how most here who support a single payer system envision how that would work. Whether it be state by state or at the federal level? i can't imagine how single payer would work at the state level.What type of tax would pay for it and on who would you impose it? if by "tax" you mean "insurance premium", the government would impose it and the insured would pay it. just like now.Who would operate the system? if it was a separate system, it would have it's own bureaucracy. however, before you have a coronary about that, it would not need to be a very expensive bureaucracy. mostly, it would be a clearing account for funds.Who would define the benefits and would you like unlimited access to all available medical services for everyone? there are a lot of ways of handling this. i would think something like an insurance commission would work.Would doctors and healthcare employees be government employees? no.Would the hospitals and offices be government owned? no.Would the government do all of the research and development for new technology? no.Would they own the patents and apporove new drugs and procedures? the government? no. insurance companies don't do this in the private sector. they would not do it in the public sector, either.I would personally have real concerns with our government getting this involved with our medical system simply because their record for efficient delivery of service has not been that good on any other program they manage. Secondly medical care is important to a society but maybe not as critical as food and shelter. Would we want to make them single payer also? there is no way the government would have anything to do with healthcare- only the funding mechanism for it. and probably only for cheap healthcare (basic & preventative). the expensive s*&t would still be private. that is how ALL OF THE BEST healthcare insurance systems work.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 16, 2014 11:01:55 GMT -5
The more I read about it the more I hate it- yet I strongly support many provisions of it. What a bad move to let the insurance companies write it and jettison the only thing that would have brought costs down.
I looked into what another poster was claiming on another thread about the individual exchange plans- had some serious doubts- and turns out they were right to be pissed off about parts of it. The low level plans SUCK when it comes to basic healthcare.
But on the other side- people fighting the law wanting to keep their plans were arguing to keep even shittier ones.
Count me as one of the people that hate Obamacare as a solution but will take it over anything the GOP has offered so far- er- actually this is what the GOP offered a while back
The fix is coming state by state- maybe we end up with 50 single payer systems- sounds good to me.
i think that would be a fairly chaotic result. a federal single payer system would be way more efficient and democratizing in terms of funding.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on May 16, 2014 11:03:22 GMT -5
The easiest way would be to open Medicare to everyone and ban private insurance for anything that Medicare covers.
The main idea is everyone in the risk pool and everyone is covered regardless of job, income, condition, etc. The rest is up for debate- but I would keep it payroll deducted and leave the other private entities alone.
We do not have a problem with food and shelter like we do with healthcare. The biggest problem- next to being unable to get treatment-is being on an insurance plan and still wind up bankrupt. That should not be possible- not over medical bills.
We can definitely afford to do it considering we are paying about double what other countries are for their systems. Just no political will.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 16, 2014 11:32:45 GMT -5
The easiest way would be to open Medicare to everyone and ban private insurance for anything that Medicare covers.
The main idea is everyone in the risk pool and everyone is covered regardless of job, income, condition, etc. The rest is up for debate- but I would keep it payroll deducted and leave the other private entities alone.
We do not have a problem with food and shelter like we do with healthcare. The biggest problem- next to being unable to get treatment-is being on an insurance plan and still wind up bankrupt. That should not be possible- not over medical bills.
We can definitely afford to do it considering we are paying about double what other countries are for their systems. Just no political will.
there is no political will on the part of those that actually run things in the US, that is true. there is plenty of political will in the electorate. kind of puts everything into perspective, doesn't it?
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on May 16, 2014 13:56:23 GMT -5
The easiest way would be to open Medicare to everyone and ban private insurance for anything that Medicare covers.
The main idea is everyone in the risk pool and everyone is covered regardless of job, income, condition, etc. So no insurance companies, no medicare, no medicaid, no disability just everyone covered for any medical need and the bill goes to a single payer which is the government? The rest is up for debate- but I would keep it payroll deducted So the working person pays for everyone through payroll deduction? and leave the other private entities alone. Does this mean that private hospitals, care providers, pharmacitical companies, medical research and etc could remain privately owned but receive all of their revenue from the government.
We do not have a problem with food and shelter like we do with healthcare. Haven't you heard about the housing crisis that almost ruined our economy and the rest of the worlds a few years ago or the ads on television about 1 in 6 children in our country not getting enough food? The biggest problem- next to being unable to get treatment-Now this seems a bit overstated since we do have laws that grant everyone access to basic medical care and the caregiver cannot deny it. is being on an insurance plan and still wind up bankrupt. That should not be possible- not over medical bills. What conditions should be allowed that leads to the financial stress that causes bankruptcy?
We can definitely afford to do it considering we are paying about double what other countries are for their systems. Just no political will. We do IMO have the best healthcare in the world in this country by many standards and are largely responsible for the development of new medical technology that the rest of the world uses or we supply for free. It is however very costly for many reasons. Most of which do not even get mentioned in these conversations or political circles. So I would submit that from my perspective it has little to do with political will but simply personal will power and some common sense. Have you ever looked at what we could do to our national health care cost with things like diet, exercise, TORT reform, breaking up monopolies in this industry? These things would reduce our costs by percentages that compare to no other but they get little attention because they do not require a new tax, a new government program and are more difficult to use for political benefit. The political will we lack is to demand that these morons do their job in Washington and pass some legislation that actually addresses some root cause problem instead of passing 2700 pages of crap by one party in the middle of the night that will ultimately create even more government waste, increase monopolies, drive up our national debt even more.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on May 16, 2014 14:18:08 GMT -5
I would be most interested in hearing how most here who support a single payer system envision how that would work. Whether it be state by state or at the federal level? i can't imagine how single payer would work at the state level. I only ask because it was suggested above but I would think 50 different ones would be about 50 times worse then 1.What type of tax would pay for it and on who would you impose it? if by "tax" you mean "insurance premium", the government would impose it and the insured would pay it. just like now. If the government paid for all medical costs "single payer" then by definition there should be no need for "insurance"Who would operate the system? if it was a separate system, it would have it's own bureaucracy. however, before you have a coronary about that, it would not need to be a very expensive bureaucracy. mostly, it would be a clearing account for funds. "not need to be a very expensive bureaucracy" would be the key words here. History could be wrong this time but it usually isn't.Who would define the benefits and would you like unlimited access to all available medical services for everyone? there are a lot of ways of handling this. i would think something like an insurance commission would work.Would doctors and healthcare employees be government employees? no.Would the hospitals and offices be government owned? no.Would the government do all of the research and development for new technology? no.Would they own the patents and apporove new drugs and procedures? the government? no. insurance companies don't do this in the private sector. they would not do it in the public sector, either.I would personally have real concerns with our government getting this involved with our medical system simply because their record for efficient delivery of service has not been that good on any other program they manage. Secondly medical care is important to a society but maybe not as critical as food and shelter. Would we want to make them single payer also? there is no way the government would have anything to do with healthcare- only the funding mechanism for it. and probably only for cheap healthcare (basic & preventative). the expensive s*&t would still be private. that is how ALL OF THE BEST healthcare insurance systems work. Ironically this description could almost not be more opposite from the direction ACA takes us. It has alot to do with healthcare, discourages cheap insurance policies and does not have an adequate funding mechanism. So what does anyone find to like about it in terms of cost reduction unless you happen to be one who gets subsidized insurance? It does nothing to fix the issue of expensive national medical cost!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 16, 2014 14:27:07 GMT -5
there is no way the government would have anything to do with healthcare- only the funding mechanism for it. and probably only for cheap healthcare (basic & preventative). the expensive s*&t would still be private. that is how ALL OF THE BEST healthcare insurance systems work. Ironically this description could almost not be more opposite from the direction ACA takes us. It has alot to do with healthcare
how so?
, discourages cheap insurance policies and does not have an adequate funding mechanism. So what does anyone find to like about it in terms of cost reduction unless you happen to be one who gets subsidized insurance? It does nothing to fix the issue of expensive national medical cost!i totally agree with the latter part, which is why i am in favor of a public option.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 16, 2014 14:33:37 GMT -5
If the government paid for all medical costs "single payer" then by definition there should be no need for "insurance"
no, the product that was purchased would be "insurance", not "healthcare". the insurance would be used to provide the healthcare, not to pay for the healthcare directly. i disagree that the government would have to pay for "everything", as well. you could absolutely limit what was being paid for. most healthcare systems do. there is no requirement, for example, for you to get a hip replacement if you are in hospice. you can ask, but those requests will be reviewed. if you are denied coverage, because it is not part of the insurance plan, you are always welcome to come out of pocket, or to provide your own insurance. single payer is not, in the best cases, a replacement for ALL health insurance. only for the health insurance that most people need (or, as someone else pointed out, the health MAINTENANCE that most people need. it is not really even insurance in the meaningful sense).
Who would operate the system?
if it was a separate system, it would have it's own bureaucracy. however, before you have a coronary about that, it would not need to be a very expensive bureaucracy. mostly, it would be a clearing account for funds.
"not need to be a very expensive bureaucracy" would be the key words here. History could be wrong this time but it usually isn't.
that is a common perception, but it is not true at all in the case of medicare. medicare costs (overhead) are significantly lower than private insurance. SIGNIFICANTLY.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on May 16, 2014 14:44:33 GMT -5
i totally agree with the latter part, which is why i am in favor of a public option. ACA has many different direct effects on healthcare and it's delivery. Some of which are not necessarily bad things btw. www.healthcapital.com/hcc/newsletter/1_11/aca.pdf
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on May 16, 2014 14:55:26 GMT -5
If the government paid for all medical costs "single payer" then by definition there should be no need for "insurance"no, the product that was purchased would be "insurance", not "healthcare". the insurance would be used to provide the healthcare, not to pay for the healthcare directly. i disagree that the government would have to pay for "everything", as well. you could absolutely limit what was being paid for. most healthcare systems do. there is no requirement, for example, for you to get a hip replacement if you are in hospice. you can ask, but those requests will be reviewed. if you are denied coverage, because it is not part of the insurance plan, you are always welcome to come out of pocket, or to provide your own insurance. single payer is not, in the best cases, a replacement for ALL health insurance. only for the health insurance that most people need (or, as someone else pointed out, the health MAINTENANCE that most people need. it is not really even insurance in the meaningful sense).
Exactly my point. You would not really be buying a product or insurance anymore. There would be no need for insurance companies at all except for the case you reffered to which would be if someone wanted to purchase additional coverage. You pay money to the government and they give it to the doctor. As a country we would be "self insured" just like some large corpoartions do now right? Who would operate the system?if it was a separate system, it would have it's own bureaucracy. however, before you have a coronary about that, it would not need to be a very expensive bureaucracy. mostly, it would be a clearing account for funds. "not need to be a very expensive bureaucracy" would be the key words here. History could be wrong this time but it usually isn't. that is a common perception, but it is not true at all in the case of medicare. medicare costs (overhead) are significantly lower than private insurance. SIGNIFICANTLY. So should we just scrap ACA, raise the witholding for Medicare and just put everyone on that program?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 16, 2014 14:59:12 GMT -5
i totally agree with the latter part, which is why i am in favor of a public option. ACA has many different direct effects on healthcare and it's delivery. Some of which are not necessarily bad things btw. www.healthcapital.com/hcc/newsletter/1_11/aca.pdfsure. here is my point, rockon. the insurance industry has a very big impact on the way things are done in terms of healthcare. for example if your insurance plan covers psychiatric care, you are (if memory serves) about 3x as likely to seek that care than if it does NOT. that is, pretty obviously, impacting "healthcare outcomes", but somehow this is not an issue when private industry does it. it is ONLY a problem when it is public. i really don't understand that logic at all. if it is good for the goose, it should be good for the gander. if the private health insurance industry can make arbitrary decisions about what to cover and how much coverage can be given, then so can the public health insurance market. if that INFLUENCES healthcare, then sobeit. we should make extra certain that those INFLUENCES have a positive impact on the body public rather than the insurance industry: that would be a VAST improvement over the way things stand now.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 16, 2014 15:01:53 GMT -5
If the government paid for all medical costs "single payer" then by definition there should be no need for "insurance"no, the product that was purchased would be "insurance", not "healthcare". the insurance would be used to provide the healthcare, not to pay for the healthcare directly. i disagree that the government would have to pay for "everything", as well. you could absolutely limit what was being paid for. most healthcare systems do. there is no requirement, for example, for you to get a hip replacement if you are in hospice. you can ask, but those requests will be reviewed. if you are denied coverage, because it is not part of the insurance plan, you are always welcome to come out of pocket, or to provide your own insurance. single payer is not, in the best cases, a replacement for ALL health insurance. only for the health insurance that most people need (or, as someone else pointed out, the health MAINTENANCE that most people need. it is not really even insurance in the meaningful sense).
Exactly my point. You would not really be buying a product or insurance anymore. There would be no need for insurance companies at all except for the case you reffered to which would be if someone wanted to purchase additional coverage. You pay money to the government and they give it to the doctor. As a country we would be "self insured" just like some large corpoartions do now right?no. the best systems are "dual systems". there is a public system that is used for general healthcare, and then a private system that is available for, say, really weird catastrophic or exceptional stuff. that is how the BEST systems work. i don't think ANYONE (even me, and i LOATHE insurance companies) is suggesting that we get rid of all health insurance. only the 90% that most people use. Who would operate the system?if it was a separate system, it would have it's own bureaucracy. however, before you have a coronary about that, it would not need to be a very expensive bureaucracy. mostly, it would be a clearing account for funds. "not need to be a very expensive bureaucracy" would be the key words here. History could be wrong this time but it usually isn't. that is a common perception, but it is not true at all in the case of medicare. medicare costs (overhead) are significantly lower than private insurance. SIGNIFICANTLY. So should we just scrap ACA, raise the witholding for Medicare and just put everyone on that program?no, that is a single payer ONLY system, and i am totally opposed to that. the best systems are dual systems, like France, not single payer only, like Canada.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on May 17, 2014 9:19:43 GMT -5
Well, actually the GOP doesn't want to repeal the law. The establishment is pretty excited about it. They can allocate some of the slush fund, pull some strings here and there-- kind of like amnesty, the income tax, social security, medicare, and other failed laws, and government programs. not really hearing that excitement. all i hear is repeal. You "hear" a lot of things from politicians- but when the GOP House- with control of the purse- has had an opportunity to de-fund it (and, no- as a matter of fact, it does NOT matter what the President and the Senate do- they have absolute control of the purse-- they took a pass. What they do speaks so loudly, what they say I cannot hear.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on May 17, 2014 9:21:18 GMT -5
i totally agree with the latter part, which is why i am in favor of a public option. I could be down with an "insurer of last resort" kind of idea, but ONLY as a market option-- not as a monopoly, or a taxpayer funded monstrosity with regulations to choke out competitors.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on May 17, 2014 9:22:44 GMT -5
The easiest way would be to open Medicare to everyone and ban private insurance for anything that Medicare covers.
The main idea is everyone in the risk pool and everyone is covered regardless of job, income, condition, etc. The rest is up for debate- but I would keep it payroll deducted and leave the other private entities alone.
We do not have a problem with food and shelter like we do with healthcare. The biggest problem- next to being unable to get treatment-is being on an insurance plan and still wind up bankrupt. That should not be possible- not over medical bills.
We can definitely afford to do it considering we are paying about double what other countries are for their systems. Just no political will.
Why the fuck would you "ban" private insurance? I mean seriously, what is WRONG with you statists?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 17, 2014 10:22:14 GMT -5
i totally agree with the latter part, which is why i am in favor of a public option. I could be down with an "insurer of last resort" kind of idea, but ONLY as a market option-- not as a monopoly, or a taxpayer funded monstrosity with regulations to choke out competitors. that is precisely what the public option is. it would be "part of the menu", not "the menu".
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 17, 2014 10:26:53 GMT -5
not really hearing that excitement. all i hear is repeal. You "hear" a lot of things from politicians- but when the GOP House- with control of the purse- has had an opportunity to de-fund it (and, no- as a matter of fact, it does NOT matter what the President and the Senate do- they have absolute control of the purse)-- they took a pass. What they do speaks so loudly, what they say I cannot hear. when they were fumbling around with the budget, ObamaCare moved forward. it was one of the few parts of the government that didn't stop dead in it's tracks. why was that?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,494
|
Post by Tennesseer on May 17, 2014 10:38:37 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 17, 2014 10:44:25 GMT -5
don't exaggerate. even the organizer said 400-500.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,494
|
Post by Tennesseer on May 17, 2014 10:50:59 GMT -5
don't exaggerate. even the organizer said 400-500. The organizer only missed his projected interest estimate by only 9,999,500. Hopefully he did not promise free brown bag lunches and pre-pay for them before he knew the actual attendance numbers.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,563
|
Post by tallguy on May 17, 2014 10:57:57 GMT -5
The other side is that he missed it by 29,999,500.
Seems that some people are as good at making estimates as their co-believers are at reading polls.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 17, 2014 11:33:56 GMT -5
The other side is that he missed it by 29,999,500.
Seems that some people are as good at making estimates as their co-believers are at reading polls.
you know what i find most amusing about this? it is that people like Riley actually think that THEIR enthusiasm for overthrowing Obama (through non-democratic means) is COMMON. he fails to recognize that we are in an advanced industrial economy. it is hard to motivate people during CRISIS (which we are NOT in), let alone in times of recovery. but he is also a terrible organizer. Friday is a stone cold stupid day to organize a rally, and doing so without the Koch's or Limbaugh or someone who has the wherewithal to organize and spend money to make the event successful is basically an invitation to look foolish.....which is precisely what happened. if this guy had any sense, we won't be hearing much more from him. my guess is = he doesn't have much sense.
|
|