EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 710
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 13 2013 20:32 paralleluniverse wrote: Wow, a program for people with pre-existing conditions out of money? I wonder why? Maybe, perhaps it's something to do with the fact that they have pre-existing conditions? Could it possibly be? And their pre-existing conditions were so bad that no insurer would cover them that they were forced to rely on this government program? And now these people can now get insurance at the same price as everyone else thanks to Obamacare, and be mandated to pay for their insurance like everyone else. What do the Republicans think of this? That it's a terrible thing that these people with pre-existing conditions should be allowed to get healthcare, instead we should repeal Obamacare so that they can either just die or end up at the ER where the costs are socialized. First off, "they," enrollees, was only at a fraction of the predicted enrollment. Oops. Let's insert some of your feigned shock here. It gets better. You see, the disappointingly few number of enrollees did not leave any kind of surplus in the appropriation for, you know, pricing it for the estimates. They have no idea of the price (They're not getting insurance at the same price, the price is still prohibitive, its the price the consumer sees that has changed). People with pre-existing conditions have always been allowed to get healthcare, they have in the past not been able to find insurance to pay for it. Your leftist mindset inserts words like "allow" to try to demonize the companies expected to go out of business for the good of the masses. You can't wish away the expense like a dreamer in a fairy tale novel. Somebody's going to have to pay, and you're redistributing wealth just as fast as you can to subsidize their care, to pay the high price. Go walk over to the money tree, because treatment costs money and expensive, protracted treatment costs lots of money. If that great mass of Democrats behind closed doors with "No Republicans Allowed" pasted on front had managed to float some notion of the cost of insuring all kinds of people with pre-existing conditions, some kind of estimate, I might even be a supporter. There are competing ideas about how to keep coverage for people that have to switch plans with a health problem. Democrats ignore these. I was talking a while back about employers paying into an individual's plan that they can keep if they switch jobs (with a new employer paying into the same plan.) The length of coverage helps insurance companies price their product knowing the tail risk of a huge health problem and huge health bills. Secondly, you can enact protections for those buying individual insurance plans that currently apply to employers. Namely, you can only grant a pre-existing condition exemption should the individual not have 12 months of previous coverage. It encourages individuals to buy and keep their health insurance for periods of time, while discouraging the wait-until-you're-sick-to-buy-coverage currently enshrined in law. It's not even that the Obamacare approach to pre-existing conditions has never been tried before. Maine was forced to rollback its guaranteed issue and community rating it enacted in 1993 after it did more harm to individuals than good. I sense that competing ideas are anathema to today's practitioners of centrally planned solutions, but I offer up others in case somebody is willing to listen to others. People that don't shut off their brains after stating, "It does help somebody somewhere, and you're cruel and want them to die or go to the ER." | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) announced the resignation Friday of an official tied to the growing scandal over a traffic jam on the George Washington Bridge last summer. Bill Baroni, an ally of Christie's who was the deputy executive director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which oversees the bridge, resigned effective immediately. Other local officials have alleged three lanes leading onto the bridge were ordered closed by Christie's allies because a local mayor declined to endorse the governor's re-election bid. Baroni said the lanes were closed for a traffic study. Christie said the resignation was "nothing that I hadn’t planned already." The governor also denied political concerns played a role in the gridlock. "Baroni said when he testified (during a recent hearing) that a mistake was made. They believe that the study needed to be done but they didn’t do it correctly within the protocols of the Port Authority," Christie said. "He’s taken responsibility for that, as well he should because he’s the lead person for New Jersey at the Port." The resignation followed that of another Port Authority official, David Wildstein, who announced last week that he would step down Jan. 1. Source | ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
| ||
|
dabom88
United States3483 Posts
On December 14 2013 03:08 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdkGA_rgHRY#t=16 SMH. I can maybe excuse you thinking St. Nicholas being white. But Jesus being a white guy? No. Just no. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On December 14 2013 04:15 TheFish7 wrote: ^ My father worked for the Port Authority of NJ/NY for 20+ years. He said the people in charge of the place would just promote their friends to high positions, regardless of their competence, and that Christie (or "Fat boy" as he called him) was one of the worst offenders of this. Nothing against your father in particular, but I've heard this so much at multiple jobs I've been to from disgruntled employees they didn't get a promotion, including at my current job. In reality, the people that whine that mgmt plays favorites actually ARE less competent, despite them saying their numbers, etc. aren't as good. Of course, anecdotal only, but I just hear it so much... and it never ends up being true, in my very limited sample of workplace experience. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
Ex-Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich transcends politics in engaging packed house at Amherst College AMHERST — In front of a packed Johnson Chapel on the Amherst College campus Wednesday evening, former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich engaged the students in a spirited discussion that transcended politics and in the end, won the crowd over. ... Gingrich's appearance in the liberal-leaning town didn't go unnoticed by the active progressive groups that call Hampshire County home, although the community outrage didn't come close to reaching the level that came to define the University of Massachusetts speech delivered by strategist Karl Rove in April. There were dissenters in the crowd, but they never interrupted or staged an actual protest, as was the case with Rove on the other campus in Amherst. What they did do, however, is use the question-and-answer session at the end to try and catch the former speaker off guard with written, prepared statements and questions. As two young women took turns challenging Gingrich's support of natural gas fracking, they gasped when he asked if they knew which form of electrical generation killed the most birds. "That is wind power," he said to applause from the amused audience. ... Link | ||
|
Livelovedie
United States492 Posts
 ... props to him for engaging with her because she seems pretty angry and too irrational to have a serious conversation with... though I guess there really wasn't one. I couldn't hear what she said in regards to fracking. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 14 2013 06:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Apparently Newt Gingrich was in my area earlier this week speaking at Amherst College. It doesn't look like it was taped, unfortunately, as all I've been able to find is a short amateur clip. Link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pGn4qPtt3Y That clip is so hilarious. "I'm the future and my future energy solution is globalized wind and solar." Don't know enough about fracking to criticize it, don't know enough about wind and solar to glamorize it. Newt's a mixed bag, but congratulations to him on that performance. | ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
On December 14 2013 05:50 FabledIntegral wrote: Nothing against your father in particular, but I've heard this so much at multiple jobs I've been to from disgruntled employees they didn't get a promotion, including at my current job. In reality, the people that whine that mgmt plays favorites actually ARE less competent, despite them saying their numbers, etc. aren't as good. Of course, anecdotal only, but I just hear it so much... and it never ends up being true, in my very limited sample of workplace experience. I know that's like a cliche and all, but he wasn't a disgruntled employee. He was one of the top architects and had a hand in designing the big international terminal at JFK Airport. Don't get me wrong - I'm not the biggest fan of the guy as he was absent for much of my childhood, but he's not one to twist things like that. He only left after finishing a big project at Newark. He also said that the whole culture used to be much different; it was merit based in the past but the port authority had become corrupted over time. There have been a number of examples in plain sight in recent years - contracts being awarded to construction companies with mob ties, the Pan Am terminal being demolished, and now the recent debacle where heads are actually starting to roll. Sure, he could've been exaggerating, but I think there is good reason to be skeptical in this case. On December 14 2013 06:43 Livelovedie wrote: Newt Gingrich... the champion of our feathered friends ... props to him for engaging with her because she seems pretty angry and too irrational to have a serious conversation with... though I guess there really wasn't one. I couldn't hear what she said in regards to fracking. Funnily enough I also heard this from my father years ago, its unfortunate but the birds are too stupid and will fly into the windmills and get killed. There were cases where there were fields of bird carcasses littering the ground, so badly that people began to protest them because of how bad it got. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
The bipartisan budget deal brokered by Democratic Sen. Patty Murray and Republican House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan now moves on to the Senate after passing the House Thursday. It's expected to be met by opposition by many Senate Republicans, including Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida. source (includes the video)"We have a government that’s going to spend about $600 billion more than it takes in, and then this budget comes in and actually adds more money to that equation, to the amount of money that we need to borrow to function," Rubio said in an interview with the co-hosts of "CBS This Morning." "It increases spending by $60 billion over the next two years but promises to pay for it with cuts over the next 10 – something that we know Congress never gets back to actually carrying out," he said. The budget bill has been strongly criticized by conservative groups for adding too much in the spending column and not cutting enough. Meanwhile, House Speaker John Boehner and Ryan stand by the agreement. "If you're for reducing the budget deficit, then you should be voting for this bill. If you're for cutting the size of government, you should be supporting this budget," Boehner said Thursday. The deal was brokered in the spirit of compromise, Ryan explained Thursday on "CBS This Morning." "We decided .. let’s see where the common ground exists, and let's at a minimum see if we can prevent these government shutdowns." Rubio said that the deal left many problems unsolved. "Compromise also has to be a solution," he said. "I mean, compromise just for the sake of compromise so we can feel good about each other, I don’t think is progress for the country." Rubio right on the money. I particularly liked Norah O'Donnell (female news anchor) jaw-drop when Rubio said "compromise just for the sake of compromise so we can feel good about each other I don't think is progress for the country." She goes "Really? Really? That's what you think?" | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
Though i'd rather just throw the bums out and write a sound budget myself, sadly that's not an option. | ||
|
Adila
United States874 Posts
Sounds like he's pandering and trying to regain his base again. | ||
|
darthfoley
United States8003 Posts
http://nypost.com/2013/12/12/obamas-flirt-with-danish-prime-minister-is-a-disgrace/ ...In front of 91 world leaders, the mourning nation of South Africa and Obama’s clearly furious wife, Michelle, the president flirted, giggled, whispered like a recalcitrant child and made a damn fool of himself at first sight of Denmark’s voluptuously curvy and married prime minister, Helle Thorning-Schmidt. Not to be outdone by the president’s bad behavior, the Danish hellcat hiked up her skirt to expose long Scandinavian legs covered by nothing more substantial than sheer black stockings... | ||
|
Saryph
United States1955 Posts
Texas teen Ethan Couch gets 10 years' probation for driving drunk, killing 4 (CNN) -- To the families of the victims, Ethan Couch was a killer on the road, a drunken teenage driver who caused a crash that left four people dead. To the defense, the youth is himself a victim -- of "affluenza," according to one psychologist -- the product of wealthy, privileged parents who never set limits for the boy. To a judge, who sentenced Couch to 10 years' probation but no jail time, he's a defendant in need of treatment. The decision disappointed prosecutors and stunned victims' family members, who say they feel that Couch got off too easy. Prosecutors had asked for the maximum of 20 years behind bars. ... Source Does this set the precedent that wealth places certain people above the law? (not that I am saying they weren't before) Does this seem unreasonable to anyone else? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21738 Posts
On December 14 2013 11:08 Saryph wrote: Does this set the precedent that wealth places certain people above the law? (not that I am saying they weren't before) Does this seem unreasonable to anyone else? My first instinct says bribed judge. Lets wait what the inevitable appeals say before reading to much into it. | ||
|
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
On December 14 2013 10:28 darthfoley wrote: This is actually unbelievable lmao. Borderline erotica... http://nypost.com/2013/12/12/obamas-flirt-with-danish-prime-minister-is-a-disgrace/ [QUOTE]On December 14 2013 XX:69 NewYorkPost wrote: And today the Jewish insurrection began its final phase. As white slavery ensues, we must question our decision to support these lizard men. TL;DR New York Post is sometimes a step above unaccredited blogs and the tabloids. This is probably not one of those cases, and you shouldn't support their carefully designed bullshit probes into popular media. | ||
|
Livelovedie
United States492 Posts
On December 14 2013 11:08 Saryph wrote: Does this set the precedent that wealth places certain people above the law? (not that I am saying they weren't before) Does this seem unreasonable to anyone else? Does anyone else see the irony in wealthy parents (presumably) hiring a defense attorney (likely a pricey one) using the defense that wealth caused the problem? | ||
|
Livelovedie
United States492 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States42868 Posts
On December 14 2013 11:08 Saryph wrote: Does this set the precedent that wealth places certain people above the law? (not that I am saying they weren't before) Does this seem unreasonable to anyone else? No, not at all. The ideal outcome of this is that he doesn't drink drive and becomes a productive and useful member of society. Experts made the case to the judge that this route would achieve that while being entirely funded by the guilty party whereas the alternative, twenty years in prison, would be very unlikely to achieve it and cost the taxpayer a fortune. If the experts are right (and let's assume that they are) then this is the ideal solution. I heard this story from a friend who has actually driven drunk before and my response was to ask her how what she did was morally any different from him. Had a chain of events entirely outside of his control gone differently there would have been no harm here, and had events outside of the control of the person I was talking to gone differently she could be the drunk driving murderer. Yes, the wealth of his parents created an alternative not available to other people but unless we're all suddenly against money allowing people to have more expensive options I don't really see the issue with that. He got away with manslaughter, but no more so than anyone else who has made the decision to negligently risk the lives of others in a vehicle. If the experts think he can be fixed and his parents are willing to cough up the money for it so the state doesn't have to then that's a good thing. It's not like prison has a good track record for helping people deal with their emotional issues and become productive members of society. | ||
| ||
