Comment history

Open forum, April 7-13

Well actually luvithere, since you referenced "two", and it was only vanwadreamer and me; I'd kinda think you did single me out. Just sayin'.

No matter. It seems to me that nailingit pulled that alleged factoid out of thin air, and I asked for clarification. Vanwadreamer has made it clear that his numbers are coming from his own hands-on experience.

April 11, 2014 at 3:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Open forum, April 7-13

"...and the usual crowd argues the same old points re ACA. Nails-you will not convince either of the two to budge. Why try?..." -- luvithere — April 10, 2014 at 9:20 p.m.

Let’s get something straight. My exchange yesterday with nailingit was about one thing: nailingit claimed that ACA premiums were ONLY going up a small amount and I asked him to support his claim. That’s it. Look at it. Look at my question of 10:40 a.m. and then look at his response at 12:26 p.m.

April 11, 2014 at 3:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Open forum, April 7-13

Well, when you little dyed-in-the-wool Socialists get tired of your sleight-of-hand obfuscations, stereotyping assumptions and race card playing, you might head over to Lew's site and try to learn how to laugh for a change. (The best medicine in the world). With the dour outlook you people have, it's no wonder you need Obamacare in your lives.

April 10, 2014 at 10:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Open forum, April 7-13

You've had a habit of making a lot of erroneous assumptions nailingit.

April 10, 2014 at 8:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Open forum, April 7-13

If you can't get the whole loaf now, settle for half and get the other half later.

April 10, 2014 at 7:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Open forum, April 7-13

"The ACA was never supposed to be the end all- do all program..." - Hawkman — April 10, 2014 at 5:50 p.m.

Where would you say the ACA is headed? I mean eventually.

April 10, 2014 at 6:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Open forum, April 7-13

nailingit — April 10, 2014 at 12:36 p.m

It’s a little hard to follow along your rather disjointed reasoning, but I guess you’re saying your 12:23 post was a continuation of your 12:05 post. So what? . It has nothing to do with anything.

Here is the thread:

“Much of the fight over the ACA is about a premium going up a few bucks…”- nailingit — April 8, 2014 at 12:23 p.m.

“Going up a few bucks??HAR HAR HAR…Mine went up 37% … How about our younger crowd, most of their premiums went up also. So you have statistics to prove how many premiums seem to be going down… What is many, 10-20-30-50% of the Premium paying peeps…”- vanwadreamer — April 9, 2014 at 3:34 p.m.

“Feel free to list credible sources to back those numbers up. National sources that produce cost/benefit analysis, to include subsidies, Medicare recipients, income levels, previously uninsured, emergency room cost reductions, etc. Understanding it's too early to properly produce such, just wondering where your blanket opinion came from.” - nailingit — April 9, 2014 at 8:56 p.m.

“I believe vanwadreamer was asking what your source is for claiming that premiums are only going up a few bucks. I'd like to know also.
So just where DID you get that from?” - kn_dalai — April 10, 2014 at 10:40 a.m.

You should take your own advice and pay attention to detail. You will note, that I did not directly quote you at 12:23 p.m. I did this so that I might add the word “only” myself. You are correct that this was to emphasize your use of the phrase “going up a few bucks” which clearly implies “only”. However, the emotionalism part is a province which is yours alone, and always has been. As I have repeatedly pointed out to you about your MO: a good defense is a strong offense. And here we see his again.

If your “going up a few bucks” is supposed to be a metaphor, then it’s a very poor one. The significant increases we are all aware of, including those vanwadreamer has seen as an insurance professional, can hardly be described as a "few bucks".

April 10, 2014 at 3:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Open forum, April 7-13

nailingit — April 9, 2014 at 8:56 p.m.

I believe vanwadreamer was asking what your source is for claiming that premiums are only going up a few bucks. I'd like to know also.
So just where DID you get that from?

April 10, 2014 at 10:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Open forum, April 7-13

jacjak — April 8, 2014 at 7:59 p.m.

There is a distinction to be made between poor farmers flocking to cities looking to better their condition, versus government mandated land use policies implemented expressly for the purpose of driving citizen’s into high density urban dwelling.

I must also disagree with your assessment of what constitutes social engineering. 1) Your observation would be better served if religion were mandated by government decree, 2) Those rules and so on that you mention, are to be made with the consent of the governed.

The paper I cited, mentions nothing about political parties nor philosophies; merely that people, quite overwhelmingly, desire their own transportation. Your ideas, about rules and so forth, seem to be advocating for the philosopher kings of Plato. You know; the experts who know what’s best for the governed.

April 8, 2014 at 8:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Open forum, April 7-13

“Mandating higher densities is driven by expectations of decreasing auto use and increasing use of alternative modes. Yet, the evidence that this will occur is weak. For the foreseeable future, people will rely on the automobile to satisfy a great majority of their personal transportation needs. Regardless of the success of new pedestrian and transit-oriented developments, the vast majority of travel will continue to be by auto. In growing urban areas, the argument that “we can’t build our way out of congestion,” or assertions that new highway capacity will only induce more travel and congest again, fails to recognize the expression of personal travel preferences. Moreover, not all of new capacity is consumed by induced travel. The majority of new capacity will serve a needed function in growing regions. The urban planning profession cannot continue to ignore the fact that about 90 percent of new trips will be by auto, and not provide for them.”

“Planners need to take a more realistic stance with respect to personal transportation, particularly in suburban contexts. Planners often assume, with little or no evidence, that people will switch to transit if larger transit investments are made, and if roads are allowed to congest and land use densities are increased. In fact, transit usage continues to decline in all but a few cities, particularly for the journey to work.”

Well, here’s a PhD type that actually seems to have some eyes and a mind. Professor Emeritus, no less.

None of this has anything to do with conspiracies. Just the same; make no mistake that at the heart of government centralized planning, is proactive social engineering by those government urban planners trying to change human behavior, rather than responding to citizens’ own desires. The Washington State Growth Management Act is all about government mandated population densification.

As I’ve stated before, it’s more than a good guess, that there’s an overwhelming presence at our own county level of the - preeminence of government - thinking in social work, planning and environmental departments, at least. And yeah, there is a war of sorts going on, and Madore is in the thick of it in this county.

April 8, 2014 at 6:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )