http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder#Diagnosis

Quote :

"The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders fourth edition, DSM IV-TR, a widely used manual for diagnosing mental disorders, defines narcissistic personality disorder (in Axis II Cluster B) as: A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following: 1. Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements) 2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love 3. Believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions) 4. Requires excessive admiration 5. Has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations 6. Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends 7. Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others 8. Is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her 9. Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes"

Relevant.

9/8/2012 3:13:33 PM

Yeah.

You also called it relevant the other gajillion times you posted that.

9/8/2012 3:27:20 PM

Its been more than a gajillion, at least fifty gajillion or so.

9/8/2012 5:50:58 PM

eleventy billion purple green horny toads desperately trying to find their way off of the banana hammock.

9/8/2012 6:14:17 PM

9/8/2012 9:10:33 PM

9/9/2012 12:06:04 AM

Quote :

"eyedrb didn't really present facts though. He presented personal anecdotes with articles supporting said anecdotes."

LOL. Yeah, ACA doesnt cut funding to medicare and doctors arent dropping medicare bc of currently low reimbursement rates. Cutting those rates further will make doctor RUN to sign up for medicare again and even offer free cotton candy. Quite a world you live in.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/08/20/how-obamacares-716-billion-in-cuts-will-drive-doctors-out-of-medicare/

Another "sad" article full of lies. But if you want to pull your head out and read a bit it actually gives you a bit of history on why congress has to pass a "doctor fix" every so often to keep rates from being cut.

If you want to get into medicare Im happy to do it. Send an PM and we can talk about how medicare reimbursement policies are helping to cause hospitals to use house money to buy up private practices...which is helping to drive up costs to taxpayers as well. Good ole govt BS. Or we can talk about the MANDATE to have a medicare approved EHR by 2014. Which not only sucks ass, barely works, slows us down, but costs a shitload of time and MONEY.

9/9/2012 10:37:50 AM

I wonder why Republicans are throwing a fit over medicare when it's just another entitlement program...

9/9/2012 10:43:27 AM

Both sides are trying to drum up medi-scare towards the elderly. Just politics.

It has to change, I like the voucher idea better. This is a classic example of the federal govt going outside of its power. Causing dependency on a program that you basically cant touch, which is not sustainable. Then each side attacks the others for trying to address it.

9/9/2012 11:30:19 AM

Quote :

"Both sides are trying to drum up medi-scare towards the elderly. Just politics. "

Pretty much this.

9/9/2012 12:52:08 PM

^^Dependency seems to be an issue to you.

So why switch to vouchers? Wouldn't people just be dependent on vouchers?

And do you see any potential downsides to vouchers? If so, what are they?

9/9/2012 1:04:33 PM

Bridget, just like a pension vs 401k/defined contribution plan is that a voucher would allow for the govt to control costs= limit the expense to the taxpayer. These programs are created and funded when they expect costs growth to be X, which is usually low, and for the people to live to by Y yrs old. But with costs exploding and people living longer you cant really calculate the expense of these programs. With a voucher you can limit the costs. We are going to pay X amount of dollars towards your premium. I think this has a chance to reduce insurance costs bc now individuals will be shopping for insurance personally. The "downside" would be that unhealthy people will be paying more than they currently do.

So lets say the annual premium is 8k a year. You get a 5k voucher from medicare. You way 3k for your premium. But if your unhealthy and your premium is more, then you would pay more. I would imagine there would be different charity groups that would assist those really in need. (plus we would still have medicaid) Now if all this seems cruel you need to remember that that generation has the most wealth in our society. To me, it seems cruel to keep on taxing people who are starting their earning years more (for a program they probably wont be able to use) so that the wealthier generation can continue to pay less for the services THEY personally consume.

9/10/2012 9:57:14 AM

Quote :

"So lets say the annual premium is 8k a year. You get a 5k voucher from medicare. You way 3k for your premium. But if your unhealthy and your premium is more, then you would pay more. I would imagine there would be different charity groups that would assist those really in need."

No, there are people who just wouldn't pay the 3k. They would even take the tax penalty that comes along with that. So we're talking about >65 year-olds who can't walk into a hospital and get care.

We know what the democratic reaction to that scenario would be: "fuck no". They wouldn't consider allowing that scenario. But you can't ask someone to cover some % of their premiums while at the same time absolutely assuring they'll be covered, unless you just take it out of their SS check. If not paying meant that you'd get covered anyway, why the fuck would anyone pay?

The elderly are ripe for campaign promises precisely because they're the ones terrified that in so-many years there will be no one there for them.

9/10/2012 12:33:50 PM

Quote :

" So we're talking about >65 year-olds who can't walk into a hospital and get care. "

What? You are going to have to explain that one.

Im sure there will be some who wont pay the difference. They could get a very high deductible for whatever the voucher covers. The point of the voucher is to control the costs to the taxpayer. It is a defined benefit vs unlimited benefit currently.

9/10/2012 1:52:17 PM

Quote :

"I would imagine there would be..."

Sounds like something that shouldn't be left to chance.

Quote :

"Now if all this seems cruel you need to remember that that generation has the most wealth in our society."

So it would be crueler to those generations with less wealth in our society, right?

9/10/2012 2:02:40 PM

Quote :

"So lets say the annual premium is 8k a year. You get a 5k voucher from medicare. You way 3k for your premium."

This is slightly inaccurate. Situations in which voucher subsidies are used often result in increased prices for the consumer. The provider understands that the consumer has $x amount they can use on a service so they increase the going rate since the willingness to pay of the consumer hasn't changed and consumers do no calculate the voucher in their WTP since it can't be used elsewhere. This is widely accepted and is often discussed toward the end of your first micro class.

The only way to stop it would be to legislate the profits health care companies make but I don't see a republican group offering that option.

9/10/2012 2:09:40 PM

Quote :

"Situations in which voucher subsidies are used often result in increased prices for the consumer. "

True, however in this case we are moving in the other direction. The consumer is used to paying next to nothing. It isnt like college where people are used to paying 10k a year, introduce a 5k voucher, and now we will raise the rate to 15k.

Another reason subsidies increase price is because they increase demand. Same with health care. As the cost of a valued good or service decreases to the individual they will consume more. In order to get health care costs in control you have to get shift more of the costs back on the consumer. (which will work. Not legislate profits)

9/10/2012 2:24:29 PM

Quote :

"I would imagine there would be different charity groups that would assist those really in need.""

$3k for each elderly person who can't afford to spend an extra $3K a year because of their fixed income? If that were only 20% of seniors, thats still tens of billions of dollars. This is supposed to come from charity?

Quote :

"So we're talking about >65 year-olds who can't walk into a hospital and get care."

Or maybe they DO get care when their condition becomes an emergency. Then the urgent care facility doesn't get paid, and soon no urgent care facilities exist anymore.

[Edited on September 10, 2012 at 2:30 PM. Reason : thems fightin quotes]

9/10/2012 2:30:39 PM

If the argument for the current system is that legit consumers are being punished by having to subsidize the cost of those who receive free healthcare, then the ACA is a step in the right direction. It requires everyone to pay into the system and mandates how much certain things cost. This reduces the cost of individual procedures back to fair value AND ensures that providers will be compensated based on each person they treat. The American people win because we now all have healthcare at a more reasonable cost, and providers win because they will take in more revenue due to more customers.

9/10/2012 3:48:09 PM

except you arent factoring in 20M more on medicaid, add in the subsidies to others and taxes. Plus you have the premiums explode for the healthy and young as it sets that you cant charge over a certain amount from your lowest to highest premiums.

There will be simply MORE people on the system that arent paying in. (or in as much)

Nevermind the fact the govt is forcing you to buy something, or charging you a tax if you decline. Funny how libs hate how much money corps spend on lobbying, hell the damn just broke with that ruling.

The fact is that we cant afford entitlements as is. We can pretend everything is fine and raising taxes on the rich will fix it, it wont. All you need is a calculator and some common sense. But there are too many voters either on them or about to be on them to do anything about it. Our debt is about to really take off.

9/10/2012 4:20:40 PM

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/10/cnn-poll-obama-up-six-points-over-romney/

Quote :

"According to a CNN/ORC International Poll released Monday, 52% of likely voters nationwide back the president, compared to 46% for Romney. Just before the convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, Obama was tied with Romney 48%-48%."

Quote :

"Obama also took away Romney's lead on leadership for the country's future. Now 51% of likely voters think Obama has a more optimistic vision for the country's future, compared to Romney at 41%. Last week, however, 43% said Obama was more optimistic, while 47% said the same about Romney."

Quote :

" Before the Republican event, 45% thought Romney was more likely to have a clear plan, while only 39% felt the same about the president. Now the two have switched places, with 45% saying Obama has a clear plan, compared 39% saying the same about Romney."

Now that's a convention bounce.

9/10/2012 4:46:46 PM

9/10/2012 6:00:47 PM

^^ first and third i get, but that second one is pure fluff.. they're really polling about the candidates' "optimism"?

9/10/2012 6:04:17 PM

For me, what's hurting Romney is his speak of lowering the deficit, while also lowering taxes and repealing Obamacare (which has been stated time and time again would raise the deficit further to cut Obamacare)...

He has said he's going to be able to raise revenue while cutting taxes, but no math has made those two approaches add up.

9/10/2012 6:43:48 PM

People can debate social programs all you want, but Seniors and children should have free access to healthcare when such care is not affordable to them or their families. Period.

9/10/2012 7:47:56 PM

^How do you provide free health-care for seniors when End-of-Life care costs increase exponentially with age/condition? There isn't enough money to sustain everyone as long as technologically possible.

9/11/2012 12:05:18 PM

Depends on what you mean by "end of life" care. A lot of times people get into an unstable condition, put on Oxygen and a drip and then Hospice comes in to be with them until they die.

The whole scenario where "OMG tax payers are paying to keep this veg alive" is extremely overblown.

[Edited on September 11, 2012 at 12:12 PM. Reason : sa]

9/11/2012 12:10:10 PM

Dang...those poll numbers are so biased it isn't funny (or surprising from CNN).

Out of 1022 responders, 44 (5%) more Democrats (than Republicans) were polled.

Statisticians please explain the balance of the poll...I personally do not care.

9/12/2012 12:11:07 AM

there are more registered Democrats than there are Republicans

there is exactly a 5% difference (38.8%-33.8%)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/23/party-id-rl_n_725932.html

9/12/2012 12:59:10 AM

yeah...no

there may have been more Democrats.

all that data is from DailyKos

not the most...balanced

and three years ago, well into the punch bowl filled with Flavor-Ade that is Obamism

the scales have been taken away from the eyes of those who--instead of being Hoped and Changed--have been Obamowned.

9/12/2012 2:25:44 AM

^well, that sounds like a balanced opinion

9/12/2012 9:17:30 AM

Quote :

"there are more registered Democrats than there are Republicans"

I thought this was common knowledge

Quote :

"Statisticians please explain the balance of the poll...I personally do not care."

DERP


[Edited on September 12, 2012 at 9:31 AM. Reason : you forgot to point out that Obama is a narcissist today]

9/12/2012 9:29:34 AM

maybe this source, gallup, will be more palatable for you

http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx


The average difference is slightly more than 3%, if you include leaners. I didn't do the average variance for a pure split because i don't care that much, you can read it for yourself kc and no matter what I post you're going to claim some sort of bias because you live in cognitive dissonance since any information that may make you realize you're not the rational, high-minded voter that you suspect yourself to be.

9/12/2012 11:04:01 AM

It's not like there aren't mathematical ways to compensate for that either...

Generally pollsters know enough maths to do that kind of thing... they just aren't calling people and reporting response without processing the data.

9/12/2012 9:29:09 PM

Quote :

"and repealing Obamacare (which has been stated time and time again would raise the deficit further to cut Obamacare)..."

you can keep telling the same lie over and over and over again, but it doesn't make it any more true. barely breaking even with 6 years of expenses and 10 years of revenue is NOT a money-making proposition, unless, of course, you think Enron was perfectly solvent. and you have the balls to talk about "the math not adding up"

9/12/2012 11:48:10 PM

So I guess an anonymous tip from the state office to the media gave the name of the guy who either made or funded the "movie."

I don't personally have a problem with it. If you are going to cause harm to innocent people and cause the national security of the US (see upgraded warnings coming out now) exercising your right to [hate] free speech then don't be a pussy and hide behind your words/actions.

But I'm sure others will criticize him/his state department.

9/13/2012 6:28:55 PM

New NBC/WSJ/Marist polls show Obama +7 in OH, +5 in FL and Virginia among likely voters. Keep in mind that Obama has never trailed in Ohio since the beginning of the general election. The media needs to stop calling it a tossup. Ohio is definitely going blue, and Romney now has to sweep basically every other swing state to win.

9/13/2012 6:53:28 PM

Shrike, I think you should agree to leave TSB if Obama loses.

I have agreed to leave if he wins.

Deal?

9/13/2012 6:59:15 PM

what about diplomacy you two?

9/13/2012 7:14:31 PM

http://washingtonexaminer.com/franchisors-warn-obamacare-will-halve-profits/article/2507920#.UFJ97lYkkjN

Quote :

"Barr has 23 stores with 421 employees, 109 of whom are full-time. Of those, he provides 30 with health insurance. Barr said he pays 81 percent of their Blue Cross Blue Shield policy, or $4,073 of $5,028 for individuals, more for families, for a total bill of $129,000 a year. Employees pay $995. Under Obamacare, however, he will have to provide health insurance for all 109 full-time workers, a cost of $444,000, or two and half times more than his current costs. That $315,000 increase is equal to just over half his annual profit, after expenses, or 1.5 percent of sales. As a result, he said, "I'm not paying $444,000." Providing no insurance would result in a federal fine of $158,000, $29,000 more than he now spends but the lowest cost possible under the Obamacare law. So he now views that as his cap and he'll either cut worker hours or replace them with machines to get his costs down or dump them on the public health exchange and pay the fine. "Every business has a way to eliminate jobs," he said, "but that's not good for them or me." But that's not all. His experience tells him that most low-wage workers he would have to cover under Obamacare won't take it because their $995 share is too high, meaning those the program was set up for won't see any benefit. And those who do will because they have major health issues, likely resulting in higher premiums to him."

9/13/2012 8:50:08 PM

I'm sorry but covering 81% seems insanely high.

9/13/2012 10:12:01 PM

It sounds like he pays his workers crap, and already expects them get public assistance, while taking home 3/4 of a million for himself.

Why should the public have to pay for his workers healthcare (and possibly other services) when he has more than enough resources himself? It's assholes like him that create gov creep.

9/13/2012 10:22:55 PM

for real. when I worked for a small business, my healthcare cost was 72 dollars a week. he's a hell of a guy to pay that much

[Edited on September 13, 2012 at 10:29 PM. Reason : .]

9/13/2012 10:24:50 PM

well what is Mitt Romney's position on Obamacare:

Quote :

"It started with the Republican presidential candidate saying during an appearance on “Meet the Press” that he liked the Affordable Care Act’s provision that requires insurers to cover preexisting conditions, and would support something similar. Hours later, his campaign clarified he did not, however, support a federal ban against denying coverage for preexisting conditions. Around 10 p.m., the Romney camp had circled back to the same position it held back in March: that the governor supports coverage for preexisting conditions for people who have had continuous coverage."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/10/who-would-be-left-out-of-romneys-preexisting-conditions-plan-about-89-million-americans/

Quote :

"Romney doesn't want to get into these details about who will get what subsidies. But the details are important. They are the difference between expanding health insurance coverage to the vast majority of Americans, and leaving tens of millions of Americans without access to the health care they need. And they are the difference between actually making it possible for people with pre-existing conditions to get the coverage they need, and not making it possible. As on so many issues, Romney's line on health reform is essentially, "Trust me, I'll figure it out." But uninsured Americans stand to gain a lot from the implementation of Obamacare. They have no particular reason to believe that Romney's vague alternative would bring them similar benefits. "

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-13/romney-shows-again-why-he-can-t-be-trusted-on-health-care.html

oh that explains it all...

[Edited on September 13, 2012 at 10:33 PM. Reason : ...]

9/13/2012 10:29:42 PM

This thread should have gone all spun up the moment our embassies were attacked.

credibility - 1x10-9

9/13/2012 11:33:14 PM

What credibility?

This thread should have ended on like, page 3.

Not unique to Obama; a credibility watch thread for any politician in 2012 is simply laughable.

9/14/2012 10:13:58 AM

^^so you're saying it's Obama's fault that the embassies were attacked?

9/14/2012 10:17:22 AM

Quote :

"Shrike, I think you should agree to leave TSB if Obama loses. I have agreed to leave if he wins. Deal?"

How about instead of slinking away like a pussy after Obama wins, you stay and admit how wrong you were? Admit that Obama is a great President who's done an excellent job given extraordinary circumstances. That despite unprecedented Republican intransigence he's managed to make good on many of his promises, including landmark health care reform. That the auto bailouts were an unmitigated success. That he's done a masterful job of navigating several difficult international challenges, including making the right call to intervene in Libya.

Admit that Romney/Ryan would be awful leaders for this country, who's economic "plan" would destroy the middle class and push the poor down even further. That their foreign policy is a return to the neocon ideology that destroyed our economy and our reputation abroad. That their entire campaign has been based on one lie after another. That the tea party was nothing but a thinly veiled, racially motivated, protest against Obama's candidacy.

When you admit all those things, you have my permission to quit.

9/14/2012 11:33:58 AM

Quote :

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder#Diagnosis"

Sounds an awful lot like the entire conservative movement to me...

9/14/2012 11:35:06 AM

Quote :

"Admit that Obama is a great President who's done an excellent job given extraordinary circumstances. That despite unprecedented Republican intransigence he's managed to make good on many of his promises, including landmark health care reform. That the auto bailouts were an unmitigated success. That he's done a masterful job of navigating several difficult international challenges, including making the right call to intervene in Libya. "

Quote :

"Through the 1970s, the United States underwent a wrenching period of low economic growth, high inflation and interest rates, and intermittent energy crises.[4] Added to this was a perceived sense of malaise that in both foreign and domestic affairs the nation was headed downward. By the beginning of the election season, the prolonged Iran hostage crisis had sharpened public perceptions of a national crisis.[5] Jimmy Carter was blamed for the Iran hostage crisis, in which the followers of the Ayatollah Khomeni burned American flags and chanted anti-American slogans, parading the captured American hostages in public, and burning effigies of Carter. Carter's critics saw him as an inept leader who had failed to solve the worsening economic problems at home. His supporters defended the president as a decent, well-intentioned man being unfairly attacked for problems that had been building for years."

9/14/2012 11:36:04 AM