|
joether -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (11/14/2013 2:18:24 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: lovmuffin
That's just absurd. With most of those things it would really depend on the value. A case of beer vs a 9mm Glock, anyone with brains slightly bigger than the size of a piss ant, even if he hates guns, is going to take the Glock and sell it. Then he's up $500.00. Even a person like myself who likes guns and values the freedom to be able to own one, a Canon 5D mark 3 vs an AR 15, I'm going for the camera and I'll be up about $1000.00.
Your view is all taken within a vacuum without reality being allowed to enter into the equation. A case of beer is much more valuable on a college campus than a firearm. One will get you into the door and with the hot women; the other will get you expelled and thrown off campus. The worth of an idea is determine between only two forces: the buyer and the seller. In each example, I took a 'lowball' amount for either item. Being on the 50 yard line at the Super Bowl when one's team is playing, is worth more to a serious NFL watcher than a firearm. How much are one of those seats worth? Particularly if its right down next to the action?
We can play 'Monopoly' and discuss whether getting the Orange properties is worth giving someone two monopolies and allowing them to become the 'slum lord' (i.e. purple and grey properties plus Reading Railroad). The difference in items are much easier to determine than one item that is tangible while the other is conceptual. Back over ten years ago, I actually had to explain to a business professor at a major university why ANYONE would use dollars to buy a sword that existed only in a fantasy online game (i.e. Everquest). Yes, he had trouble wrapping his head around the idea that someone would buy something that does not exist in the real world for hundreds of dollars.
quote:
ORIGINAL: lovmuffin
And your stupid Obaminationcare is affecting the whole nation in a negative way including myself. Ya take something that has problems and make it much worse. Yeah, that makes sense.....to a liberal.
The healthcare system before the ACA was so completely FUCKED, that it was heading towards destruction anyways. The number one cause of bankruptcies in the United States was due to medical bills. Rates in many states were rising by double digits each year. It was harder and harder to see a medical doctor much less help in the ER. Things were basically screwed up. So something was done about it. I've never stated the ACA is a perfect document. It has problems. However, the problems I see are different from how you see them. The difference is not our two political viewpoints. Or how we view the President. Or Democrats/Republicans. Or I'm liberal and your conservative. Its the fact of...I read the document and you did not. So your perceptions of what is actually in the document and how it all works, is fairly limited to what the media at large explains.
If you minus out the rhetoric for a moment, lovmuffin, and read the whole document. What would understand of how the process works? You would not have the current viewpoint you hold now. The document explains the theory on how the exchanges would operate. It does not spell out what the code for the whole website would be, line for line. And that is what your blaming it on. The website according to the President should be back up and running on November 30th of this year. The President tapped many good minds around the nation to help re-engineer the site to take into consideration the many complexities and stresses the site has to operate under. Like any introduction of something that is new, there will be problems and hopefully those problems will get fixed. The President has already stated that if Americans are having trouble researching the material and making an informed decision before the due date (that's Jan 1, 2014 as per the ACA), he'll push the date back.
My view is he'll set that day back by about two or three months part way into December if not sooner. The number of sign ups will actually be known sometime in January or into February. March or April would give us a fairly decent understanding of just how many people are picking out plans. Three factors to remember here:
A ) The number of people obtaining these plans is not the whole nation, or just adults. Many Americans have healthcare plans through their employers or through other means that remains within the law's framework (i.e. plans that are grandfathered in). Its hard to say what the actual number might be, as its widely open to interpretation right now.
B ) Most people do not show up at a car dealership and just buy a car on the spot (unless its a real POS). Most will do their homework with a car. Same is expected with the plans through the exchanges. Understanding what they are, what they cover, how much they'll cost and a few dozen other issues to navigate. Like which was seen with the Mass Health, plans being 'purchased' (see 'C' below) start off at a low rate and rise up as time closes to Jan 1, 2014 (assuming this date is not pushed back).
C ) An how do we know how many plans have been purchased? That information begins when the insurance company sends out the first bill, and payment is received. Before the website went 'poof' in the first week, it was expected that those payments would not start being received until late November (unlikely at the time) or December (more likely). Given circumstances, that information will likewise be pushed back.
So in ending here, lovmuffin, I'm trying to give you some useful knowledge on the subject matter. I'm not 100% certain on some of this stuff, but I'm fairly confident in what I'm stating here. Time will tell how close to the right answer I am, right?
|
|
|
|
