Government Shut-Down....

[Hemodoc]

Are you on medicare Peter?

Yes, but I didn't use my Medicare for about 2 years until Kaiser forced all on its coverage to turn over Medicare to them or pay very large co-pays for each dialysis session. Not much choice on the Medicare either since that is just about automatic with the ESRD diagnosis. My dialysis unit signed me up when I started in-center. Just the way it is. But I had private coverage for all of my dialysis without any medicare coverage and that is the way it was for a couple of years when I first started dialysis nearly 7 years ago.

[Shaks24]

Do you have a feasible answer for the healthcare crisis in America? You have some 40+ million folks that either can not afford coverage or are denied coverage because of pre existing conditions. Admittedly, ACA is messy but its a start. They should work on making improvements to it instead of trying to blow it up without a viable solution to the problem. Most of the uninsured are probably folks with little means. They deserve a solution and to deny that is wrong in the worlds richest nation. I think in time ACA will become a cornerstone of stability and security for the American public. Just like social security and medicare. We will see.

[Hemodoc]

Do you have a feasible answer for the healthcare crisis in America? You have some 40+ million folks that either can not afford coverage or are denied coverage because of pre existing conditions. Admittedly, ACA is messy but its a start. They should work on making improvements to it instead of trying to blow it up without a viable solution to the problem. Most of the uninsured are probably folks with little means. They deserve a solution and to deny that is wrong in the worlds richest nation. I think in time ACA will become a cornerstone of stability and security for the American public. Just like social security and medicare. We will see.

A cornerstone of stability?? Sorry, but it is not designed to stabilize anything. It is instead designed to destabilize our economy and our health care industry to not only lead to single payor but also to European style socialism. Stability, not with this monstrous work.

[Shaks24]

How has it destabilized our economy? We have been in a slow growth mode for years since the great recession that GW ushered in. The markets are at record highs as are corporate earnings. ACA has been law since 2010 although key aspects of it are just now kicking in. The current economic conditions do not validate your claims. You are parroting the typical GOP gobbly gook. I think the conservative fear is that this program will become very popular and that the regret is that it was implemented by a black democratic president. As to employment, if the GOP would cooperate in building a budget that could lead to growth and stability, corporate America would hire again. If we had jobs and growth, consumer demand would increase and drive profits even higher as corporations could drive earnings with top line growth in lieu of expense management. Instead what we have had from the right is total obstruction of anything proposed by the president. The right wants him to fail even though his failure would hurt America. We have seen this multiple times. It is sick and I hope they will pay a political price for it.

[Hemodoc]

How has it destabilized our economy? We have been in a slow growth mode for years since the great recession that GW ushered in. The markets are at record highs as are corporate earnings. ACA has been law since 2010 although key aspects of it are just now kicking in. The current economic conditions do not validate your claims. You are parroting the typical GOP gobbly gook. I think the conservative fear is that this program will become very popular and that the regret is that it was implemented by a black democratic president. As to employment, if the GOP would cooperate in building a budget that could lead to growth and stability, corporate America would hire again. If we had jobs and growth, consumer demand would increase and drive profits even higher as corporations could drive earnings with top line growth in lieu of expense management. Instead what we have had from the right is total obstruction of anything proposed by the president. The right wants him to fail even though his failure would hurt America. We have seen this multiple times. It is sick and I hope they will pay a political price for it.

Oh really, I guess a 30 hour work week will work for you, shifting your employees to the exchanges, part time job creation. Yes, yes, yes, that is just GOP propaganda alright. The markets usually are at record highs before the bubble bursts so that is not a predictor of good times to come for sure. GOP cooperation, baloney, how can they do anything in a rationale fashion with the current child in chief in office today. Sorry, I am not a republican and much of what they do is a bunch of garbage but you are quite deluded about what ObummerCare will do to this nation and it is NOT the cornerstone of stability. That truly is funny.

[noahvale]

How has it destabilized our economy? We have been in a slow growth mode for years since the great recession that GW ushered in. The markets are at record highs as are corporate earnings. ACA has been law since 2010 although key aspects of it are just now kicking in. The current economic conditions do not validate your claims. You are parroting the typical GOP gobbly gook. I think the conservative fear is that this program will become very popular and that the regret is that it was implemented by a black democratic president. As to employment, if the GOP would cooperate in building a budget that could lead to growth and stability, corporate America would hire again. If we had jobs and growth, consumer demand would increase and drive profits even higher as corporations could drive earnings with top line growth in lieu of expense management. Instead what we have had from the right is total obstruction of anything proposed by the president. The right wants him to fail even though his failure would hurt America. We have seen this multiple times. It is sick and I hope they will pay a political price for it.

It can be quite successfully argued that your screed is nothing more than parroting typical leftist "gobbly gook" [sic].

So you truly feel that had a WHITE progressive, leftist leaning dem president come up with the ACA Republicans would have just rolled over and allowed for its implementation without dissent?

Are you so partisan that you can't even see the hyprocisy in the comment that, "what we have had from the right is total obstruction of anything proposed by the president,"  when the president nixed all proposals by the republicans followed by saying, "I will not negociate?"     

You have no concept how a heavy handed government will destroy our country.  Start with trying to understand the failure of Keynesian economics.

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell101513.php3

 

[Bill Peckham]

I am on Medicare and would love to find out just how much higher our premiums will be in 2014. After all, we did get a 1.5% increase in Social Security. for most of us, that amounts to between $15 and $17 per month. Have already been to Medicare, gov and can find no info on this. Ideas, anyone??

Medicare premiums are calculated based on a formula based on the Medicare cost of the previous year, the federal government pays 75 percent of Part B costs and beneficiaries pay 25 percent. Nothing in Obamacare changes this except in the sense that in general the growth of Part B spending is far lower than previously predicted so if I had to guess the increase in premiums will be minimal or it is possible that premiums could go down if as expected more people join Medicare Part B than die due to the Baby Boomers are now reaching 65 in force.


EDITED TO ADD: Do you mean January 2014? or the 2014 fiscal year: October 2014 to October 2015? January 2014 premiums, the Part B Medicare premiums for the 2013 fiscal year will be a bit less than $105/month up about $5/month from the premiums in the 2012 Fiscal year. My guess posted above is what our premiums will be starting next October.

Funny thing, ObamaCare which so far is a complete implementation flop stole over 700 billion from Medicare. The 9.4% cuts coming to dialysis are real and they will be painful for all. When ObamaCare is fully implemented and Medicare gutted even further, I am not sure if you will be singing the same praises.

Peter, I know that you know that Affordable Care Act had nothing to do with the recent proposal to cut dialysis reimbursement - the rebalancing of the bundle. Whether or not the cuts are justified is debatable but the reason the cut happened is known to you just as it is known to me and it had nothing to do with Obamacare. In addition I assume you know that the 700 billion in Medicare savings captured by the Affordable Care Act, which were largely comprised of cuts to the GROWTH of Medicare Part A have had no impact on the health of the Medicare Part A program, despite your prediction that Medicare Part A would be significantly impacted and one assumes you know that every republican budget from Romney to each of Ryan's has kept those savings in place. I conclude that your purpose is to frighten and worry people who rely on Medicare for reasons known only to you.

[Hemodoc]

I am on Medicare and would love to find out just how much higher our premiums will be in 2014. After all, we did get a 1.5% increase in Social Security. for most of us, that amounts to between $15 and $17 per month. Have already been to Medicare, gov and can find no info on this. Ideas, anyone??

Medicare premiums are calculated based on a formula based on the Medicare cost of the previous year, the federal government pays 75 percent of Part B costs and beneficiaries pay 25 percent. Nothing in Obamacare changes this except in the sense that in general the growth of Part B spending is far lower than previously predicted so if I had to guess the increase in premiums will be minimal or it is possible that premiums could go down if as expected more people join Medicare Part B than die due to the Baby Boomers are now reaching 65 in force.


EDITED TO ADD: Do you mean January 2014? or the 2014 fiscal year: October 2014 to October 2015? January 2014 premiums, the Part B Medicare premiums for the 2013 fiscal year will be a bit less than $105/month up about $5/month from the premiums in the 2012 Fiscal year. My guess posted above is what our premiums will be starting next October.

Funny thing, ObamaCare which so far is a complete implementation flop stole over 700 billion from Medicare. The 9.4% cuts coming to dialysis are real and they will be painful for all. When ObamaCare is fully implemented and Medicare gutted even further, I am not sure if you will be singing the same praises.

Peter, I know that you know that Affordable Care Act had nothing to do with the recent proposal to cut dialysis reimbursement - the rebalancing of the bundle. Whether or not the cuts are justified is debatable but the reason the cut happened is known to you just as it is known to me and it had nothing to do with Obamacare. In addition I assume you know that the 700 billion in Medicare savings captured by the Affordable Care Act, which were largely comprised of cuts to the GROWTH of Medicare Part A have had no impact on the health of the Medicare Part A program, despite your prediction that Medicare Part A would be significantly impacted and one assumes you know that every republican budget from Romney to each of Ryan's has kept those savings in place. I conclude that your purpose is to frighten and worry people who rely on Medicare for reasons known only to you.

I am on Medicare as well. The 9.4% cuts are quite real. The best commentary I have read to date on how they will impact patients is from a professor at UCI, Dr. Kamyar Kalantar-Zade. The cuts are real, what part of scare is real Bill??? The reason that the budget by the GOP is because Obamacare is law. No mystery, they have to take account of what reality is. No matter how much folks may dislike it, that is the law. 

http://www.renalbusiness.com/articles/2013/10/a-question-of-survival.aspx

You claim that Obamacare will generate "savings." Sorry, to date all that Obamacare has done is escalate health care costs.  in addition, reduced payment to providers will force 15% of hospitals out of business in the next 5 years.  Here is an excellent summary of the ACAs negative effects on the health industry.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/08/obamacares-impact-on-seniors-an-update

[Shaks24]

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1766772-what-happened-to-the-part-time-employment-issue

[Bill Peckham]

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1766772-what-happened-to-the-part-time-employment-issue

For some reason this news isn't being embraced on the right, nor this: Wal-Mart Returning To Full-Time Workers-Obamacare Not Such A Job Killer After All? After all people with concerns about how Obamacare will affect employment should be happy that their heartfelt concerns for workers aren't coming to pass. Not to even mention the buzz in entrepreneurial circles about the opportunity for people who have preexisting conditions or have family members with preexisting conditions to have a go at starting their own companies next year because they won't be chained to insurance providing employment.

[Hemodoc]

Bill, it is all in the details. First, let's talk about this in July of 2014 after the law is in effect and see how accurate the projections are. Secondly, there could be a very logical reason why it may or may not have an impact on part time care. Simply Obama will count the effective hours instead of actual hours even in companies with seasonal employees for only 121 days as a full time year. If they are over for 121 days, it applies to the company for the whole year. The attention is in the details.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/05/Uh-Oh-Small-Businesses-Can-t-Avoid-ObamaCare-By-Switch-To-Part-Time-Workers

So with Obama a full time work week is 30 hours and a full year is 121 days. Go figure. Is there confusion on this issue for employers??? You betcha, just like the ObamaCare website disaster. Funny, no one on IHD is talking about that train wreck already in town right now. How is that ObamaCare working for you already???

[cariad]

Now, the IHD poll is 50/50 which more likely reflects the reality across the US.

You are absolutely ridiculous.  It is obvious that you know nothing about polls and sampling.  16 people on IHD in NO way reflects the country.  My Business Statistics professor would certainly give you an F based on your comment.

Marc, I agree (of course) that the IHD poll tells us nothing but the opinions of a few members, but really this sort of thinking from the far right helps Democrats in the end. The arrogant delusion that extremist Tea Partiers reflect the "real" America and that at least half the country agrees with them led to the shock and wailing when, to their utter surprise, Obama defeated Romney. This wasn't such a surprise to anyone with a sound grasp of stats and polling. I think you have the right idea in choosing to ignore the comments (or even encouraging them....    )

[Hemodoc]

Now, the IHD poll is 50/50 which more likely reflects the reality across the US.

You are absolutely ridiculous.  It is obvious that you know nothing about polls and sampling.  16 people on IHD in NO way reflects the country.  My Business Statistics professor would certainly give you an F based on your comment.

Marc, I agree (of course) that the IHD poll tells us nothing but the opinions of a few members, but really this sort of thinking from the far right helps Democrats in the end. The arrogant delusion that extremist Tea Partiers reflect the "real" America and that at least half the country agrees with them led to the shock and wailing when, to their utter surprise, Obama defeated Romney. This wasn't such a surprise to anyone with a sound grasp of stats and polling. I think you have the right idea in choosing to ignore the comments (or even encouraging them....    )

Shock, sorry, NO ONE in the TEA party liked Romney at all with his history in MA with gun control, taxation and of course health care. No surprise at all. Weak GOP candidate against incumbent. GOP loses. Is that a SHOCK. Not at all.

Once again, I never stated the IHD poll was scientific, just that ObamaCare and other aspects of this tyrannical administration are not anywhere near as popular as the radical left wing media would portray in their own tainted polling and that the IHD probably has a fairer representation of the reality in this nation. This will be even more evident as tens of millions of people lose health insurance and will not be able to afford what is offered on the exchanges. Great job Obama.

[cariad]

Shock, sorry, NO ONE in the TEA party liked Romney at all with his history in MA with gun control, taxation and of course health care. No surprise at all. Weak GOP candidate against incumbent. GOP loses. Is that a SHOCK. Not at all.

Once again, I never stated the IHD poll was scientific, just that ObamaCare and other aspects of this tyrannical administration are not anywhere near as popular as the radical left wing media would portray in their own tainted polling and that the IHD probably has a fairer representation of the reality in this nation. This will be even more evident as tens of millions of people lose health insurance and will not be able to afford what is offered on the exchanges. Great job Obama.

Really, NO ONE in the TEA party liked Romney? I thought you said that the tea party as a group didn't exist. You speak for every last person who identifies as tea party? Interesting. You stated that the IHD poll "probably" reflects the rest of the nation when an NBC/WSJ poll stated that Republican approval was crashing and burning through the shutdown. Hmmm, what does the WSJ stand for again? Oh, that's right, Murdoch, that well-known liberal.

Here is one of literally a million links that will try to talk you through just how bad the shutdown was for Republicans: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/11/polls-show-the-gop-is-now-losing-their-faithful.html but you are always free to deny reality, just as Republicans like Karl Rove and Mitt Romney denied reality in 2012 and were publicly and hilariously stupefied when Obama earned 4 more years. Yes, there was plenty of shock to be witnessed, throughout the Republican party, including members who identify as tea party, and including the GOP candidate himself. Extrapolating the opinions of the American people from some silly little poll on IHD is a ludicrous thing to do.

[Hemodoc]

Shock, sorry, NO ONE in the TEA party liked Romney at all with his history in MA with gun control, taxation and of course health care. No surprise at all. Weak GOP candidate against incumbent. GOP loses. Is that a SHOCK. Not at all.

Once again, I never stated the IHD poll was scientific, just that ObamaCare and other aspects of this tyrannical administration are not anywhere near as popular as the radical left wing media would portray in their own tainted polling and that the IHD probably has a fairer representation of the reality in this nation. This will be even more evident as tens of millions of people lose health insurance and will not be able to afford what is offered on the exchanges. Great job Obama.

Really, NO ONE in the TEA party liked Romney? I thought you said that the tea party as a group didn't exist. You speak for every last person who identifies as tea party? Interesting. You stated that the IHD poll "probably" reflects the rest of the nation when an NBC/WSJ poll stated that Republican approval was crashing and burning through the shutdown. Hmmm, what does the WSJ stand for again? Oh, that's right, Murdoch, that well-known liberal.

Here is one of literally a million links that will try to talk you through just how bad the shutdown was for Republicans: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/11/polls-show-the-gop-is-now-losing-their-faithful.html but you are always free to deny reality, just as Republicans like Karl Rove and Mitt Romney denied reality in 2012 and were publicly and hilariously stupefied when Obama earned 4 more years. Yes, there was plenty of shock to be witnessed, throughout the Republican party, including members who identify as tea party, and including the GOP candidate himself. Extrapolating the opinions of the American people from some silly little poll on IHD is a ludicrous thing to do.

You are too funny. Romney was one of the weakest GOP candidates ever. I guess you didn't hear all of the rancor and lack of enthusiasm for his candidacy. In any case, believe as you wish in your own little world. But you are quite wrong to believe the conservatives supported Romney. In fact, many that voted FOR Romney were actually voting against Obama and holding their nose doing so.

Romeny and Obama are almost indistinguishable in their political history. Both supported gun control measures. Both brought mandatory health insurance, in fact, Obamacare is modeled on Romneycare and both massively increased spending and taxation. So, really, SHOCK. Get real.

One other issue, if you look at the last hundred years of US presidential elections, incumbents almost always win a second term. The odds of unseating a president is very remote and only occurs rarely. So incumbent vs weak GOP candidate, where is it that you get some sort of SHOCK out of that.

I will tell you what the SHOCK is here in the US today. That is the shock of millions of Americans getting letters from their health care providers telling them that they will no longer be covered and to go to the exchanges for insurance that most cannot afford. That is the real SHOCK. Not sure if it will wake up America to the real Obama or not, but yes, that is a real SHOCK getting those letters in the mail. Romney losing to Obama, shucks, that was a settled issue for quite some time. Quite a few folks that would be labeled as TEA Party folks that I know didn't even bother watching the election with the foregone conclusion already known. But really, what is it that Romney would offer concervatives as a true distinct choice from Obama. Sorry, but your contentions are truly laughable.

[cariad]

You are too funny.

I find it amusing that sarcasm is dangerous to America when democrats use it, but you hypocritically use it all the time on this very site.

Romney was one of the weakest GOP candidates ever. I guess you didn't hear all of the rancor and lack of enthusiasm for his candidacy. In any case, believe as you wish in your own little world.

But you are quite wrong to believe the conservatives supported Romney. In fact, many that voted FOR Romney were actually voting against Obama and holding their nose doing so.

We have video evidence of Karl Rove desperately pleading with statisticians to change reality. Regardless of *why* someone votes for a candidate, the goal is to elect that candidate and not the other, therefore it is support whether you like it or not. There are options when you don't support anyone in an election: write-in, 3rd party, abstention. I have cast votes for candidates that I was not at all excited about, so what? That is the nature of politics the world over.

Romeny and Obama are almost indistinguishable in their political history. Both supported gun control measures. Both brought mandatory health insurance, in fact, Obamacare is modeled on Romneycare and both massively increased spending and taxation. So, really, SHOCK. Get real.

Again, how similar or different they were is irrelevant. Yes, shock. Watch the video. A Republican much more connected with the feelings of the GOP couldn't contain his SHOCK on live television. You do not speak for all Republicans, conservatives, nor tea party members, Karl Rove, however, does speak for a sizeable number of Republicans.

One other issue, if you look at the last hundred years of US presidential elections, incumbents almost always win a second term. The odds of unseating a president is very remote and only occurs rarely. So incumbent vs weak GOP candidate, where is it that you get some sort of SHOCK out of that.

I love how you pull these random numbers out and earnestly claim that it proves something. Why 100 years? Why not look at all of them, there have only been 44, so I would argue that a president being elected at all is a rare event. Almost like it only happens, at most, once every four years!

Politics have changed so radically as new technology comes in to play, but I'll humour you and look at the past 50 years since it's a nice, round number, we all are pretty familiar with those elections, and it happens to roughly begin with the first televised debate. I'll even include Kennedy because it gives us nice round numbers to look at, and I'll even (very generously) let him stay in the column with the other winning incumbents (he wasn't) along with Johnson (who should really have been counted as a loss) and Nixon who cheated famously and horribly. Including Kennedy, there have been 10 presidents since the early 60s. THREE incumbents lost in that time frame. THIRTY PERCENT!!! In what universe is that a rare event? I guess in yours. But I'm the one in my own little world. I invite others to join me here, the sky is blue and math and science can tell us things about the world.

I will tell you what the SHOCK is here in the US today.

Wow. Now you speak for all in the US. You are a very important person, aren't you?

That is the shock of millions of Americans getting letters from their health care providers telling them that they will no longer be covered and to go to the exchanges for insurance that most cannot afford. That is the real SHOCK.

I would think the tens of millions of uninsured will be quite shocked that they can now get health insurance! I know being able to buy my own health insurance in America would have been the shock of a lifetime for me!

Not sure if it will wake up America to the real Obama or not, but yes, that is a real SHOCK getting those letters in the mail. Romney losing to Obama, shucks, that was a settled issue for quite some time. Quite a few folks that would be labeled as TEA Party folks that I know didn't even bother watching the election with the foregone conclusion already known. But really, what is it that Romney would offer concervatives as a true distinct choice from Obama. Sorry, but your contentions are truly laughable.

Peter, stop obsessing over the word shock.

Your hand-wringing and keening on this site following the 2012 election certainly could be fairly interpreted as evidence of shock. You know perfectly well the real issue is not your desperate attempt to turn this conversation into a discussion of the use of the word shock, but rather that you ridiculously used an IHD poll to generalize to the rest of the country. If anything is truly laughable, it is that.

[Hemodoc]

Baloney,  the election was long over before election night. It was a foregone conclusion months before November. Believe as you wish. Even the polls consistently for MONTHS stated the obvious. Sorry, you are just wrong on that issue.

Romney was one of the weakest GOP candidates we have ever had. You want to debate that? Really.

Conservatives did NOT like Romney one little bit. That is not news either.

3rd party candidates are interesting such as the third party candidate in 1992 that gave Clinton the election. However, they are NOT a viable alternative if you wish to see someone elected.

Ford was never elected so he is a bit of an anomaly already to start. The interesting thing about Ford is he NEVER won an election for president and had no experience or organization to do so. In addition, he lost the election in large part as a reaction against his pardon of Nixon. Elected incumbents Bush and Carter are the only two in the last 50 years. That is 20% in that period and that just goes to show that statistically, the incumbent has a huge advantage in second term election. Even if you include Ford who NEVER won any election in that mix of 50 years, the incumbents in the last 50 years have a 70/30 advantage right from the get go. You haven't helped your argument, instead you have simply confirmed the known political advantage of the incumbent as I stated.  Going back a hundred years, it is an even higher advantage. Nothing random about these historical facts. Why would you call it random. Go figure.

Karl Rove is influental but also hated in many circles as well as an establishment Republican. There is a huge split in the GOP between the establishment group and conservative/libertarian republicans who have no choice but to go with the GOP since 3rd party candidates have very little viable chances of winning. It is not a happy marriage. The 2012 election did not cause this split, it has been here for quite some time.

Too funny, when have I EVER stated I speak for the GOP. That is truly funny. Anyway, thanks for the chuckle.

Math and science??? Huh, uhh, I have a B.S. degree in Biology, minor in math, minor in chemistry Summa Cum Laude and an M.D. I understand science quite well thank you. Not sure what blue cloud you picked that out of but, that is quite a chuckle a well.

There you go again saying I am speaking for everyone. Not at all, have you not seen the news on MSNBC of all places talking about the millions of people who are losing their health insurance. Many of these folks voted for Obama and believed his tragic lies that you could keep your insurance if you had it and wanted to keep it. What a monstrous lie and people today are waking to buyers remorse which is another headline as well.

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-admin-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite

So where are your tens of millions of people getting health insurance right now??? I have agreed with Rand Paul for quite a while, let Obamacare fall on its own. The GOP doesn't have to do anything except let this train wreck come to town which it is doing. How is that website working for you???

"Handwringing" since the 2012 election. Not at all. Although it saddens me greatly to see this nation walking off into great darkness in many realms, political movements and politicians are not my source of comfort or security. The Bible told us 2000 years ago what we would see in these times. While it is indeed distressing to realize the amazing amount of personal freedoms lost since I was a child here in America, I accept that these things shall come to pass as I look onward for the blessed hope of my Lord's return. I am sure you will have great fun with that statement, but so be it.

[cariad]

Baloney,  the election was long over before election night. It was a foregone conclusion months before November. Believe as you wish. Even the polls consistently for MONTHS stated the obvious. Sorry, you are just wrong on that issue.

Romney was one of the weakest GOP candidates we have ever had. You want to debate that? Really.

Conservatives did NOT like Romney one little bit. That is not news either.

3rd party candidates are interesting such as the third party candidate in 1992 that gave Clinton the election. However, they are NOT a viable alternative if you wish to see someone elected.

Ford was never elected so he is a bit of an anomaly already to start. The interesting thing about Ford is he NEVER won an election for president and had no experience or organization to do so. In addition, he lost the election in large part as a reaction against his pardon of Nixon. Elected incumbents Bush and Carter are the only two in the last 50 years. That is 20% in that period and that just goes to show that statistically, the incumbent has a huge advantage in second term election. Even if you include Ford who NEVER won any election in that mix of 50 years, the incumbents in the last 50 years have a 70/30 advantage right from the get go. You haven't helped your argument, instead you have simply confirmed the known political advantage of the incumbent as I stated.  Going back a hundred years, it is an even higher advantage. Nothing random about these historical facts. Why would you call it random. Go figure.

Karl Rove is influental but also hated in many circles as well as an establishment Republican. There is a huge split in the GOP between the establishment group and conservative/libertarian republicans who have no choice but to go with the GOP since 3rd party candidates have very little viable chances of winning. It is not a happy marriage. The 2012 election did not cause this split, it has been here for quite some time.

Too funny, when have I EVER stated I speak for the GOP. That is truly funny. Anyway, thanks for the chuckle.

Math and science??? Huh, uhh, I have a B.S. degree in Biology, minor in math, minor in chemistry Summa Cum Laude and an M.D. I understand science quite well thank you. Not sure what blue cloud you picked that out of but, that is quite a chuckle a well.

There you go again saying I am speaking for everyone. Not at all, have you not seen the news on MSNBC of all places talking about the millions of people who are losing their health insurance. Many of these folks voted for Obama and believed his tragic lies that you could keep your insurance if you had it and wanted to keep it. What a monstrous lie and people today are waking to buyers remorse which is another headline as well.

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-admin-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite

So where are your tens of millions of people getting health insurance right now??? I have agreed with Rand Paul for quite a while, let Obamacare fall on its own. The GOP doesn't have to do anything except let this train wreck come to town which it is doing. How is that website working for you???

"Handwringing" since the 2012 election. Not at all. Although it saddens me greatly to see this nation walking off into great darkness in many realms, political movements and politicians are not my source of comfort or security. The Bible told us 2000 years ago what we would see in these times. While it is indeed distressing to realize the amazing amount of personal freedoms lost since I was a child here in America, I accept that these things shall come to pass as I look onward for the blessed hope of my Lord's return. I am sure you will have great fun with that statement, but so be it.

Oh my god, do you actually expect me to read this overlong overwrought post?! 

Let's do a skim, shall we? Romney.... you know what people expected in the election and how people felt about him better than anyone else.... Ford is an anomaly but somehow the others aren't despite equally bizarre things happening with all of the elections.... completely unrequested and unnecessary history lesson.... Not everyone likes Karl Rove, well there's a surprise.... you have way more impressive degrees than anyone else in the history of the world so you cannot be bad at statistics.... a mention of MSNBC and my viewing habits (inexplicably known to you) with a link to NBC news as if those two networks are the same.... and the usual freedom, Jesus, America.

Doesn't look like I'm missing anything by skipping this one entirely! 

[Hemodoc]

Too funny once again. You are certainly free to read and believe what you wish.  Have a great day.

[Hemodoc]

For those that would actually like to see the statistics of second term presidential elections, here are some stats to consider:

History Says Obama Likely to Win in 2012
By Alan Abramowitz - February 11, 2011

The 2012 presidential election is still more than 20 months away. While the early maneuvering for the Republican presidential nomination is already underway, the identity of President Obama's GOP challenger won't be known for more than a year. Economic trends will have a major impact on the President's reelection chances and unpredictable events, such as the recent political turmoil in Egypt, could also affect the public's evaluation of the President's performance.

But even without knowing what condition the economy will be in, whether a major international crisis will erupt, or who will win the Republican nomination, one crucial determinant of the outcome of the 2012 presidential election is already known. Barack Obama will be seeking reelection as a first term incumbent and first term incumbents rarely lose.

Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/02/11/history_says_obama_likely_to_win_in_2012_108859.html#ixzz2jY8MKPUH
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

In the past hundred years, there have been ten presidential elections in which an incumbent president was seeking a second term in the White House for his party with the most recent being 2004. The key distinction here is the number of terms the incumbent's party has been in office, not the number of terms the individual incumbent has been in office. Incumbent party candidates have won nine of those ten first term elections. Jimmy Carter in 1980 was the only first term incumbent party candidate in the past century to lose and it took a devastating combination of recession, inflation, and public frustration over the seemingly endless Iran hostage crisis to bring him down.

Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/02/11/history_says_obama_likely_to_win_in_2012_108859.html#ixzz2jY8ciAoh
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

So, you questioned my 90% reelection rate, but that is exactly what it is in the last 100 years. If you look at all of the second term elections, the number is 70% reelection rate with a higher rate in the last 100 years just as I stated earlier.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/In_the_27_elections_in_which_an_incumbent_president_sought_reelection_the_incumbent's_success_rate_was_about#slide2

So much for your false allegation of pulling out random numbers Cariad. Anyway, go figure.

[cariad]

Too funny once again. You are certainly free to read and believe what you wish.  Have a great day.

Aw, thank you ever so much for reviewing my freedoms with me and concluding that I do in fact have some. I'll sleep better tonight knowing that you recognise my inalienable rights.

Not sure I can promise to have a great day, but it's looking quite promising. I'll let you know after I wade through the inevitable slew of replies that shall be waiting for me when I get back to this discussion.

[cariad]

For those that would actually like to see the statistics of second term presidential elections, here are some stats to consider:

History Says Obama Likely to Win in 2012
By Alan Abramowitz - February 11, 2011

The 2012 presidential election is still more than 20 months away. While the early maneuvering for the Republican presidential nomination is already underway, the identity of President Obama's GOP challenger won't be known for more than a year. Economic trends will have a major impact on the President's reelection chances and unpredictable events, such as the recent political turmoil in Egypt, could also affect the public's evaluation of the President's performance.

But even without knowing what condition the economy will be in, whether a major international crisis will erupt, or who will win the Republican nomination, one crucial determinant of the outcome of the 2012 presidential election is already known. Barack Obama will be seeking reelection as a first term incumbent and first term incumbents rarely lose.

Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/02/11/history_says_obama_likely_to_win_in_2012_108859.html#ixzz2jY8MKPUH
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

In the past hundred years, there have been ten presidential elections in which an incumbent president was seeking a second term in the White House for his party with the most recent being 2004. The key distinction here is the number of terms the incumbent's party has been in office, not the number of terms the individual incumbent has been in office. Incumbent party candidates have won nine of those ten first term elections. Jimmy Carter in 1980 was the only first term incumbent party candidate in the past century to lose and it took a devastating combination of recession, inflation, and public frustration over the seemingly endless Iran hostage crisis to bring him down.

Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/02/11/history_says_obama_likely_to_win_in_2012_108859.html#ixzz2jY8ciAoh
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

So, you questioned my 90% reelection rate, but that is exactly what it is in the last 100 years. If you look at all of the second term elections, the number is 70% reelection rate with a higher rate in the last 100 years just as I stated earlier.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/In_the_27_elections_in_which_an_incumbent_president_sought_reelection_the_incumbent's_success_rate_was_about#slide2

So much for your false allegation of pulling out random numbers Cariad. Anyway, go figure.

I cannot believe that you came back to this discussion 2 days later with no provocation from anyone. Is there anything you are able to let go, ever?

2012 was of course unique - as all presidential elections are - because there was unprecedented anti-incumbent sentiment toward all levels of government. I don't remember anything about you saying a 90% re-election rate, just that you said that "the odds of unseating a president is very remote" and "rare", and 30%, 20% and even 10% does not meet that definition.  Then of course you go back and fiddle the rules so that Ford doesn't count and who the flip knows (or cares) how else you've tortured the data to get it to say what you WANT it to say. This sort of overworking the data is EXTREMELY frowned upon in statistics. However, it is exactly what led to Republican leaders ignoring statistician Nate Silver's spot-on prediction by using statistical terms that THEY clearly did not understand but Mr. Silver DID. Republican reaction to this election (including YOUR bitter chants of 'go rule') have made this the most amusing election in my own lifetime. Please stay the course!!

In the end, all of this just serves to ignore that your extrapolating the feelings of the general public from a silly IHD poll is ridiculous.

[Hemodoc]

Yes, yes Cariad, 100 years of statistics with 90% reelection rates for second term elections is certainly "tortured" all right. A seventy to ninety percent incumbency advantage overall is a significant obstacle to overcome for any challenger.

Not tortured at all, just completely misunderstood by you I am afraid. Ford finished Nixon's second term and NEVER had his own first term election, thus it would be impossible to state that he was "reelected" since he was advanced to Vice President by appointment when Agnew resigned. Ford never did win any presidential election.

I would venture someone with only 10% chance of survival would be considered rare and remote.

[cariad]

Yes, yes Cariad, 100 years of statistics with 90% reelection rates for second term elections is certainly "tortured" all right. A seventy to ninety percent incumbency advantage overall is a significant obstacle to overcome for any challenger.

I never said that incumbents did not have an advantage.

Not tortured at all, just completely misunderstood by you I am afraid. Ford finished Nixon's second term and NEVER had his own first term election, thus it would be impossible to state that he was "reelected" since he was advanced to Vice President by appointment when Agnew resigned. Ford never did win any presidential election.

This is a favourite underhanded maneuver of yours:
1. Make a statement. "The odds of unseating a president is [sic] very remote".
2. Read replies from others refuting your statement.
3. CHANGE the contention to try to make your conclusion true. 10 incumbents have lost in the history of the presidency, 10 presidents were "unseated" regardless of the particulars of the presidency. 10 out of 44, over 20%! That shows that incumbents have an advantage but it is far from "very remote" that incumbents lose. In 2012 Romney himself thought he was going to win, as did many, many disillusioned Republicans, both insiders and average constituents. To argue that this was not a shock to many is to desperately wish to deny reality and rewrite history.

I would venture someone with only 10% chance of survival would be considered rare and remote.

What does this mean? A person with a 10% chance of survival is rare? Huh?

If you want to talk medical stats, when I research side effects of my own meds (or those of my family) rare side effects are normally those experienced by less than 1% of the population, at most. I just picked Prograf at random and this is what the patient info leaflet says:
Very common side effects (may affect more than 1 in 10)
Common side effects (may affect up to 1 in 10 people)
Uncommon side effects (may affect up to 1 in 100 people)
Rare side effects (may affect up to 1 in 1,000 people)

(Did you all know that a rare side effect of Prograf is blindness??!! Sh!te, if 10% of Prograf users were sent blind there is no way on this earth that anyone could have got me to swallow it for a year.)

In the end, to quote Barney Frank, I'd rather talk to a dining room table than discuss this further with you. You made a ridiculous assertion that an IHD poll reflected the country at large and are now trying to shift attention to some pointless argument about presidential incumbents. This is not even the first time you've taken an IHD poll far too seriously!! It's laughable and betrays a very, very weak understanding of statistics.

[Hemodoc]

Yes, yes Cariad, 100 years of statistics with 90% reelection rates for second term elections is certainly "tortured" all right. A seventy to ninety percent incumbency advantage overall is a significant obstacle to overcome for any challenger.

I never said that incumbents did not have an advantage.

Not tortured at all, just completely misunderstood by you I am afraid. Ford finished Nixon's second term and NEVER had his own first term election, thus it would be impossible to state that he was "reelected" since he was advanced to Vice President by appointment when Agnew resigned. Ford never did win any presidential election.

This is a favourite underhanded maneuver of yours:
1. Make a statement. "The odds of unseating a president is [sic] very remote".
2. Read replies from others refuting your statement.
3. CHANGE the contention to try to make your conclusion true. 10 incumbents have lost in the history of the presidency, 10 presidents were "unseated" regardless of the particulars of the presidency. 10 out of 44, over 20%! That shows that incumbents have an advantage but it is far from "very remote" that incumbents lose. In 2012 Romney himself thought he was going to win, as did many, many disillusioned Republicans, both insiders and average constituents. To argue that this was not a shock to many is to desperately wish to deny reality and rewrite history.

I would venture someone with only 10% chance of survival would be considered rare and remote.

What does this mean? A person with a 10% chance of survival is rare? Huh?

If you want to talk medical stats, when I research side effects of my own meds (or those of my family) rare side effects are normally those experienced by less than 1% of the population, at most. I just picked Prograf at random and this is what the patient info leaflet says:
Very common side effects (may affect more than 1 in 10)
Common side effects (may affect up to 1 in 10 people)
Uncommon side effects (may affect up to 1 in 100 people)
Rare side effects (may affect up to 1 in 1,000 people)

(Did you all know that a rare side effect of Prograf is blindness??!! Sh!te, if 10% of Prograf users were sent blind there is no way on this earth that anyone could have got me to swallow it for a year.)

In the end, to quote Barney Frank, I'd rather talk to a dining room table than discuss this further with you. You made a ridiculous assertion that an IHD poll reflected the country at large and are now trying to shift attention to some pointless argument about presidential incumbents. This is not even the first time you've taken an IHD poll far too seriously!! It's laughable and betrays a very, very weak understanding of statistics.

Too funny, you have now ranted on a very simple statement of incumbents political advantage that is simply an historical fact. Amazingly, I do agree with you on debating anything at all with you. Yes, we are in complete agreement on that for sure since your fantasies of reality are quite entertaining. All this in response to your statement that Romney's loss was a "shock." Not at all.

After all, ALL of the polls stated this emphatically for months. Perhaps it was  a shock to you it seems in some sort of Freudian aspect I suspect. For me, not a shock at all, but a foregone conclusion as Gallup stated for quite some time:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/156914/americans-predict-obama-win-2012-election.aspx

One last time on my comment on the IHD poll. Is it a scientific statistical poll? Absolutely not at all. However, my comment was this. I suspect that the real feelings on this issue are MUCH different than what is reported in the left wing media outlets. That is MY OPINION.  I do believe that there are many more folks unhappy with Obama than all of these polls suggest. In fact, just a couple of weeks later, is it a big issue for the GOP? Not at all. But Obama's healthcare failures are very much and shall only grow worse with time. After all, the GOP objection was all about supporting Obamacare.  As more and more people lose their insurance by design of Obamacare and see the sticker shock of the exchanges, the GOP tactics will likely be remembered in a much better tone than what you and the media present. So, it is NOT at all a comment about statistics which you continue to fail to understand but instead about the true underlying dissatisfaction with Obama in general and Obamacare specifically. Go figure.

Have a great night.