[Laminar]

A quick Ted Talk on wealth inequality, definitely worth the few minutes.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I just did:

Map: How the world’s countries compare on income inequality (the U.S. ranks below Nigeria)

Wealth Distribution and Income Inequality by Country | Global Finance

So... which one did you go with? *Hint: they contradict one another and the first one is using an unestablished, theoretical model.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

So... which one did you go with? *Hint: they contradict one another and the first one is using an unestablished, theoretical model.

Either way, the US doesn't fare terribly well among first world countries.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Either way, the US doesn't fare terribly well among first world countries.

And?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

And?

And, I don't know. What was your point?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I just did:

Map: How the world’s countries compare on income inequality (the U.S. ranks below Nigeria)

Wealth Distribution and Income Inequality by Country | Global Finance

Looks like Ghana is ahead of most of the 1st world too, though I believe that's simply a statement about most of the citizens being equal in their misery.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Looks like Ghana is ahead of most of the 1st world too, though I believe that's simply a statement about most of the citizens being equal in their misery.

Well, yeah, that's why I would focus on 1st world countries where there is economic upside.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

And, I don't know. What was your point?

There are a number of countries with what is deemed a troubling wealth disparity and the US is not #1 on this list. You will not find the money-grubbing, cigar-chomping, free market capitalist stalwarts you might expect to see among the countries with poorer records. The problem? Aside from a lack of regard for aid of any kind in the narrative itself, the fundamental problems are Fed distortion of money, Fed distortion of commerce, Fed distortion of labor, and Fed distortion of the free market altogether. As these inevitable follies of a centralized authority increase, so too does wealth disparity.

[laughingbunny]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

A quick Ted Talk on wealth inequality, definitely worth the few minutes.

Yes I just watched it yesterday night, it's a good video

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

It's just nice to have conversation without confrontation, you know, like when talking with people in real life.

I, uh, talk this way to my friends (and they to me) in real life. NOt all the time, but in a heated convo, yeah. For purposes of continuing discussion I will not consider you my friend.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Correct. It's many factors, the antitrust laws pushed all the players underground, but didn't change their activities.

Help me out here. Are you implying antitrust laws are bad or merely pointing out one of its effects?

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Either is entirely avoidable, unless you change all the corporate tax laws. Those methods will only affect high earners with awful accountants.

Thats what I was thinking.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

No, ignorance and apathy are the antithesis to liberty. People who are educated and diligent are much harder to fleece.

Knowledge = power, though a different kind from money.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Corporations control government, and shifts in ideology only shift the rules, they don't stop the game.

The thing is, if the corporations control govt. then we have opposing corporate ideologies and in some instances I either agree or things are beyond their grasp and so good happens.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Your second part hits the nail on the head, the "people in charge" can't be touched, because the way things are structured now, they can't be singled out. I've met some of these men and women, they aren't concerned about Law, except in ways that it can be used to further their interests.

To be honest I was referring to or people like you when I said that.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

For the government?

No, for consumers. Growing up I was taught it was a consumer driven middle-class economy. Now that the middle-class has a smaller share of the pie, I'm not surprised the economy is slowing down.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Looks like Ghana is ahead of most of the 1st world too, though I believe that's simply a statement about most of the citizens being equal in their misery.

Right. Sorry besson, but you tend to lose your argument getting caught up in presenting tangential facts. Where the USA ranks isn't important when looking at the facts in historical perspective. Income inequality has grown quite a bit in the past 40 years, and being better than some third world countries or other developed ones doesn't make the change any better.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There are a number of countries with what is deemed a troubling wealth disparity and the US is not #1 on this list. You will not find the money-grubbing, cigar-chomping, free market capitalist stalwarts you might expect to see among the countries with poorer records. The problem? Aside from a lack of regard for aid of any kind in the narrative itself, the fundamental problems are Fed distortion of money, Fed distortion of commerce, Fed distortion of labor, and Fed distortion of the free market altogether. As these inevitable follies of a centralized authority increase, so too does wealth disparity.

I don't understand the comparison to countries with tyrants and how this is relevant here?

I don't think we are going to make headway here though until you can explain how we are supposed to get on without any regulation, and what our world would look like without it.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Right. Sorry besson, but you tend to lose your argument getting caught up in presenting tangential facts. Where the USA ranks isn't important when looking at the facts in historical perspective. Income inequality has grown quite a bit in the past 40 years, and being better than some third world countries or other developed ones doesn't make the change any better.

I was getting caught up in trying to understand him. I don't know if it is just me, but I often find ebuddy's writing the opposite of plain spoken, and in conversations like this it seems like parsing walls of text in what could have been said in a more pithy, plain spoken way always seems to bog down conversation.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I was getting caught up in trying to understand him. I don't know if it is just me, but I often find ebuddy's writing the opposite of plain spoken, and in conversations like this it seems like parsing walls of text in what could have been said in a more pithy, plain spoken way always seems to bog down conversation.

I'm not the right person to ask because everyone confuses me at one point or another (subego, Shaddim, ebuddy, uncle skeleton...). That said his last big response to me earlier in the thread started "A 'clean' CR is a writ of carte blanche" and my eyes glazed over as I was outclassed, linguistically.

[subego]

I feel like ebuddy is getting piled on.

I want to state for the record, ebuddy:

1) I like you very much.
2) I think you're an invaluable contributor to the forum.
3) I do not judge the wall of text. It does not annoy or bother me, just not my thing.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I feel like ebuddy is getting piled on.

I'm doing my best to say I'm the problem when it comes to misunderstandings.

[subego]

Because you are.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Because you are.

Finally, something people of all political persuasions can agree on.

[subego]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but that was a joke. It's actually my fault, so we don't agree on shit.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Sorry to burst your bubble, but that was a joke. It's actually my fault, so we don't agree on shit.

[subego]

You found that on the Internet, didn't you?

[The Final Dakar]

It's a lolcat

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

I feel like ebuddy is getting piled on.

I want to state for the record, ebuddy:

1) I like you very much.
2) I think you're an invaluable contributor to the forum.
3) I do not judge the wall of text. It does not annoy or bother me, just not my thing.

I feel the same way.

I wish we would all virtual group hug more often. I like hugs.

[besson3c]

Dakar, does lolcats give you a little kickback whenever you post one of your lolcats? You must be affiliated with them.

[el chupacabra]

… .

[Laminar]

Capital.

[subego]

Investor hunt not going well?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

I contend that people choose to be in the wealth bracket/class that they're in, and that is why the graph is the way it is.

I think this is a little arrogant, although I know you didn't intend this to sound this way.

Starting a business requires a risk, and most new businesses statistically do not succeed. Sometimes these failures come about for reasons that have nothing to do with lacking drive or desire. Making the right decisions and surviving the bad decisions (which will come about) can be tricky.

There are also people that are not in the position to assume risk for a variety of reasons. There are people that are disabled in some way that would be in no place to do so either. There are people that could not woo venture capitalists, perhaps due to their age or geographic location, etc.

I agree with the spirit of what you've said, that there are far more people that can succeed that choose to play it safe, choose to be lazy, choose whatever else puts them where they are. I just wouldn't go so far as to say that *all* life circumstances are the results of not pursuing options, because not everybody has the same options/advantages.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Help me out here. Are you implying antitrust laws are bad or merely pointing out one of its effects?

The latter.

The thing is, if the corporations control govt. then we have opposing corporate ideologies and in some instances I either agree or things are beyond their grasp and so good happens.

What I'm saying is that they're the same people, playing both sides against the middle.

To be honest I was referring to or people like you when I said that.

Ah, I see. No, I don't position myself to be beyond reasonable taxation or state purview. As a percentage, I pay a lot more in taxes than my assistant (she doesn't like the term "secretary"), unlike some loudmouth billionaires with their own agendas.

No, for consumers. Growing up I was taught it was a consumer driven middle-class economy. Now that the middle-class has a smaller share of the pie, I'm not surprised the economy is slowing down.

It's driven by all classes, however, the most significant thing hampering the middle and lower income brackets is their addiction to fast and easy credit, with a typical debt payments to income ratio of ~20-28%, respectively, not counting mortgages. That's not taking into account cash expenditures on potentially frivolous spending. If that money was being saved/invested, and not being flushed away on paying interest, their financial prospects would be much more rosey. If you're driving a $40k car, have $20k in CC debt, and are one slip on a banana peel away from filing bankruptcy, you're catastrophically doing it wrong and need to see a financial counselor, posthaste.

I'm not saying that's the fix, nor am I in the camp that believes there's no such thing as "wealth inequality", however, stopping your own hemorrhaging is the first step in righting the ship, from an individual's perspective. The fat cats aren't getting your money if you aren't throwing it at them via debt payments and disproportionately lavish expenditures. Back when I was making $50-60k /year, which wasn't all too long ago, I had tons of disposable income and was socking away 18% into savings/retirement. But, I didn't have CC bills, car payments (drove an `89 Accord and `71 Bronco (I still drive the Bronco)), or excessive hobbies at the time, either. I'm not guessing or working off theories here, there's an actual process in building wealth, but it might as well be quantum mechanics, considering the way the vast majority of people in the world think.

[Shaddim]

Pretty big loophole in Obamacare:

The Obamacare Penalty: Yes, It Can Be Avoided - Yahoo Finance

Another thing, if people lower their tax withholding, to avoid getting their refunds pinched, then that could really hurt the government, since they kind of rely on those interest-free loans from middle income Americans to keep the keep the whole ship afloat. Yikes.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't understand the comparison to countries with tyrants and how this is relevant here?

Germany?

I don't think we are going to make headway here though until you can explain how we are supposed to get on without any regulation, and what our world would look like without it.

I never suggested we get on without any regulation.

[el chupacabra]

… .

[ebuddy]

I hate the complaints of tl;dr. I'm glad we're good.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I never suggested we get on without any regulation.

Then can you please explain how an ebuddy perfect world benevolent dictatorship would look like with regards to regulation?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

For me the the most expensive, riskiest part of making something is the permit applications fees, licensing fees, random government processing fees, legal fees, dictated insurance, and taxes.

How could you leave out health insurance?

Now with such fees who can more easily afford them? The already profitable stable corporation who's had the market locked for 40 years, or the startup company? Do you see now why large companies love ever growing regulation? Do you see how regulatory fees could discourage middle class people from taking these risks since they drastically add to the risk? And hence do you see what the real cause of wealth disparity is?

Good points, but stricter regulation doesn't necessarily need to come with all of the legal fees and stuff you are talking about. There could be tax relief as an incentive to startups, regulation that provides legal protections, etc. etc. What you are describing may be what we have now, but not what reality has to be.

[Shaddim]

Blimey, this looks pretty damned shady:

Feds reviewed only one bid for Obamacare website design | WashingtonExaminer.com
Michelle Obama's Princeton classmate was Obamacare website builder | The Daily Caller

Wow, that's some serious cash, it seems the buddy system is alive and well. Want to see how the rich are getting richer? Look no further.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Then can you please explain how an ebuddy perfect world benevolent dictatorship would look like with regards to regulation?

The first thing to understand about regulations is that they are intended to mitigate risk, but too often present substituted risk. i.e. unintended costs and consequences. We cannot continue to ignore those consequences. For example, the average annual regulatory cost per employee in a small business exceeds $10k. Businesses with fewer than 20 people incur a financial regulatory burden 42% higher than businesses with 500 or more employees. And then we wonder why wealth continues to concentrate among the top quintile.

The ebuddy Administration would start by bringing the regulatory process itself under a microscope. The process should be analyzed end-to-end for gaps in transparency and objectivity akin to the Sigma Lean model and the data inputs should be subjected to extensive risk vs risk analysis. In other words, instead of merely a punitive vehicle of revenue-generation for the government after the risk has already been realized, regulation should be designed to mitigate the target risk to begin with, not profit from the confusion caused by exhaustive legalese the drafters themselves are hard-pressed to define.

And then the current code would be brought before a bipartisan advisory panel of elected representatives in partnership with the US Chamber of Commerce with the express goal of simplification, reduction, and publication of findings.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The first thing to understand about regulations is that they are intended to mitigate risk, but too often present substituted risk. i.e. unintended costs and consequences. We cannot continue to ignore those consequences. For example, the average annual regulatory cost per employee in a small business exceeds $10k. Businesses with fewer than 20 people incur a financial regulatory burden 42% higher than businesses with 500 or more employees. And then we wonder why wealth continues to concentrate among the top quintile.

The ebuddy Administration would start by bringing the regulatory process itself under a microscope. The process should be analyzed end-to-end for gaps in transparency and objectivity akin to the Sigma Lean model and the data inputs should be subjected to extensive risk vs risk analysis. In other words, instead of merely a punitive vehicle of revenue-generation for the government after the risk has already been realized, regulation should be designed to mitigate the target risk to begin with, not profit from the confusion caused by exhaustive legalese the drafters themselves are hard-pressed to define.

And then the current code would be brought before a bipartisan advisory panel of elected representatives in partnership with the US Chamber of Commerce with the express goal of simplification, reduction, and publication of findings.

Makes sense!

I should have asked you this sooner, or else you should have said this sooner, because my impression was that you saw concept of regulation unnecessary because people should self-police. Instead, what you want is a scouring of all regulation to analyze the cost per dollar, the effects of being punitive, benefits, etc. I'm all for improving not just what we regulate and making sure there is enough teeth behind what we regulate, but also how we do so.

Do I have this right?

[besson3c]

Unfortunately, as nice as it would be to do what you want ebuddy, and I'm not grease pooing it, getting Republicans and Democrats to cooperate enough to administrate this process effectively would be nearly impossible. It's hard to see this happening today in this climate.

Are you in favor of deeper, more fundamental changes to our political process in order to take some of the money out of politics that would be necessary for this fight to be waged based on debates involving the actual ins and outs of this regulatory reform process rather than empowering/taking power from certain entities?

I mean, right now it seems like Congress would argue over how many ornaments should be on this year's Christmas tree and what color they should be.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Unfortunately, as nice as it would be to do what you want ebuddy, and I'm not grease pooing it, getting Republicans and Democrats to cooperate enough to administrate this process effectively would be nearly impossible. It's hard to see this happening today in this climate.

I disagree. I think the Contract with America under Clinton and predominantly Republican congress was a huge win for the American people. I think our problem today is a fundamental lack of leadership on both sides of the aisle, but this happens from time to time.

Are you in favor of deeper, more fundamental changes to our political process in order to take some of the money out of politics that would be necessary for this fight to be waged based on debates involving the actual ins and outs of this regulatory reform process rather than empowering/taking power from certain entities?

As long as the ones with money have what the government needs, the ones with money will always have the government's ear. I'm in favor of deeper, more fundamental changes to our government and believe this will fix the political process. Again, you can't bribe a giraffe to swim.

I mean, right now it seems like Congress would argue over how many ornaments should be on this year's Christmas tree and what color they should be.

I believe too many of our problems have been the product of token compromise. The system is designed for bickering and for good reason. For many, this feels unprecedented or particularly bad because they've only begun paying close attention to the political process since Obama was first inaugurated and believe this contention must be the product of Obama's skin color. In reality, the legislative process among your leadership in a Constitutionally-limited government is supposed to be challenging. The problem more recently is subverting that process and those limitations, name-calling, and then wondering why no one wants to sit with you at the table. Newton's third law.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I disagree. I think the Contract with America under Clinton and predominantly Republican congress was a huge win for the American people. I think our problem today is a fundamental lack of leadership on both sides of the aisle, but this happens from time to time.

My awareness of history may not be as sharp as yours, but my impression is that politics were quite nasty back then just as they are today. After all, the government was shut down twice under Clinton, the Republicans were relentless in trying to destroy the Clinton presidency just as they are today.

It would seem to me that the difference this time around is that the Republicans have that kamikaze wing of their party called the Tea Party that is willing to wage battles it cannot win, even if they cause rifts within the party. If the Republicans can't even agree amongst themselves what battles to wage, there is little to no hope of bipartisan cooperation. I mean, even Rick Santorum is saying now that he didn't agree with the shutdown.

As long as the ones with money have what the government needs, the ones with money will always have the government's ear. I'm in favor of deeper, more fundamental changes to our government and believe this will fix the political process. Again, you can't bribe a giraffe to swim.

Ones with money will always have the government's ear, yes, but whether this is creating situations where giraffes need to learn to swim, or else just exposing giraffes being complete dicks, or both, the bottom line is we gotta control dem giraffes and those that provide safe haven to giraffes.

I believe too many of our problems have been the product of token compromise. The system is designed for bickering and for good reason. For many, this feels unprecedented or particularly bad because they've only begun paying close attention to the political process since Obama was first inaugurated and believe this contention must be the product of Obama's skin color. In reality, the legislative process among your leadership in a Constitutionally-limited government is supposed to be challenging. The problem more recently is subverting that process and those limitations, name-calling, and then wondering why no one wants to sit with you at the table. Newton's third law.

This is unprecedented though, the difference is the Tea Party. Have we ever seen a government shutdown over a law that was passed three years ago, with no real prospects for victory or concern over what this would do to the party?

If it isn't unprecedented it is at least unusual, no? Republicans like yourself will probably say that Ted Cruz doesn't represent them or their ideas, but Ted Cruz is certainly getting the lion's share of attention right now, and probably will continue to do so, just as Sarah Palin did before him.

This is probably what you mean by the party not having strong leadership, but in the past didn't weak leadership just mean wishy washy actions and tactics, and not actually anything that seemed transformative to the party?

[subego]

As I've said before, the big difference between then and now is (for better or worse) the media had gatekeepers back then. TV executives got to shape what was considered news, and they had the FCC to answer to, who owned their license to print money.

Now, there's no gatekeeper. Any schlub with an Internet connection can report on the "news".

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

My awareness of history may not be as sharp as yours, but my impression is that politics were quite nasty back then just as they are today. After all, the government was shut down twice under Clinton, the Republicans were relentless in trying to destroy the Clinton presidency just as they are today.

Or 8 shutdowns under Reagan and on average, more shutdowns under Republican Administrations in a relentless, long-term Democratic House pursuit to destroy them all. (*I don't agree with framing the issue this way, but thought it prudent to illustrate the absurdity in it.)

It would seem to me that the difference this time around is that the Republicans have that kamikaze wing of their party called the Tea Party that is willing to wage battles it cannot win, even if they cause rifts within the party. If the Republicans can't even agree amongst themselves what battles to wage, there is little to no hope of bipartisan cooperation. I mean, even Rick Santorum is saying now that he didn't agree with the shutdown.

Shutdowns require two, unwilling parties. The "battle it cannot win" shifted from defund to delay quite early in the game. The House wanted a delay of the individual mandate and a bipartisan repeal of the medical device tax. Democrats could've easily relented on these two popular measures without suffering political loss. Their unwillingness was calculated in an attempt to harm Republicans with an approaching election. Particularly among those Democrats more intimately aware of how unstable the healthcare exchange portal was prior to rollout. The irony of this is staggering after all; rather than kamikaze pilots, the Tea Party wing was actually a rescue helicopter Democrats insisted we shoot at. Now we're hearing calls for delay.

Ones with money will always have the government's ear, yes, but whether this is creating situations where giraffes need to learn to swim, or else just exposing giraffes being complete dicks, or both, the bottom line is we gotta control dem giraffes and those that provide safe haven to giraffes.

That's the point of the analogy. Giraffes can't swim. You can't teach them to swim and you can't bribe them to swim. They simply do not swim. A pharmaceutical monolith cannot bribe the President on a Medicare Part D plan the government has no business dealing in... unless the government has been dealing in it. An addict may regard the host of his intervention a dick and that's unfortunate, but not reasonable cause to abandon sobriety.

This is unprecedented though, the difference is the Tea Party. Have we ever seen a government shutdown over a law that was passed three years ago, with no real prospects for victory or concern over what this would do to the party?

Have we ever had a shutdown over the funding of programs signed into law? Yeah... like most of them. In fact, included in one of Reagan's shutdowns was the push for Congressional pay increases.

If it isn't unprecedented it is at least unusual, no? Republicans like yourself will probably say that Ted Cruz doesn't represent them or their ideas, but Ted Cruz is certainly getting the lion's share of attention right now, and probably will continue to do so, just as Sarah Palin did before him.

There's a difference between ideas and representation. I may even align with them politically, but do not appreciate their representation or the manner in which they apply their ideology. This is not the PR Republicans are looking for and it is still more apparent what they oppose than what they support. I think conservative ideology has more than naysaying, cynicism, and pessimism going for it and its representation among the Tea Party wing has been unfortunate.

This is probably what you mean by the party not having strong leadership, but in the past didn't weak leadership just mean wishy washy actions and tactics, and not actually anything that seemed transformative to the party?

That's the hard part. Change isn't easy. As long as you're happy with what a politician says over what they do, they'll not do what you want. You won't close Gitmo. You'll not stop warrantless wiretapping. You won't stop unprovoked military action, rendition, or corporate cronyism. Only history will judge whether the Tea Party's actions are meritorious, but if they never see the desk of office again, they will have failed.

[BadKosh]

Now "Ass canyon" Harry Reid won't even look at house budgets UNLESS they do away with the White House Sequestration AND raise taxes. No fiscal responsibility there.

[Shaddim]

What I was talking about before? It's happening.

It's crisis time for Obamacare - Yahoo Finance

So, "you can keep your old plan" was a load of shit, and the sticker shock is more than people can bear. Color me surprised.

[Shaddim]

Oh, and we got a notice saying that our HSA isn't "sufficient coverage", we'll need a catastrophic coverage plan. I threw that away, they can just hit me with the penalty and garnish our tax return. Oh wait... we don't get a return, I guess I don't have to worry about it at all, then. Obamacare is a joke.

[subego]

You know, I'll be the first to admit health care needs fixing.

It took five years to get us what amounts to a pile of crap.

Don't you think there are other things we need fixed just as much which could have been taken care of in a much better way with the same expenditure of effort?

"But the Republicans..."

I don't give a shit what the Republicans did. Guess what? In the big leagues you have opposition. What you can accomplish needs to factor in that opposition.

What looks to have been accomplished was a steaming pile. I ask again, was that expenditure worth it? Could nothing better been done with five years?


I'll go back to Shaddim's excellent comment (he's had a lot of them lately, and forgive my paraphrasing):

Obama doesn't lead, he rules.

Say what you want about Bill Clinton, he knew (or quickly learned) his place.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

You know, I'll be the first to admit health care needs fixing.

It took five years to get us what amounts to a pile of crap.

Don't you think there are other things we need fixed just as much which could have been taken care of in a much better way with the same expenditure of effort?

"But the Republicans..."

I don't give a shit what the Republicans did. Guess what? In the big leagues you have opposition. What you can accomplish needs to factor in that opposition.

What looks to have been accomplished was a steaming pile. I ask again, was that expenditure worth it? Could nothing better been done with five years?


I'll go back to Shaddim's excellent comment (he's had a lot of them lately, and forgive my paraphrasing):

Obama doesn't lead, he rules.

Say what you want about Bill Clinton, he knew (or quickly learned) his place.

I say give things time. Something this big and transformative will take time to iron out, no matter what the implementation details are, and what party supports the changes.

Regarding the problems with the website, it is perhaps noteworthy to point out that the site was designed by a private contractor, not the government. I'm somewhat empathetic to the problems it has been having since it is extraordinary difficult to simulate stress testing at this scale, but it looks like this doesn't tell the complete story of its failings.

I don't really understand the Obama/Clinton comparisons, their conditions seem dramatically different in context.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

What I was talking about before? It's happening.

It's crisis time for Obamacare - Yahoo Finance

So, "you can keep your old plan" was a load of shit, and the sticker shock is more than people can bear. Color me surprised.

Given the recent change, the "face" of Obamacare must've been the glitch. She's gone.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Oh, and we got a notice saying that our HSA isn't "sufficient coverage", we'll need a catastrophic coverage plan.

That's because you're not capable of making this decision for you and your family. Thank goodness the Federal Government is available to step in and save you from yourself.