|
|
On July 28 2012 21:49 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 21:18 DoubleReed wrote:
Of course health coverage covers female contraception. Are you suggesting that health insurance shouldn't cover hormonal treatment that has tons of health benefits to women? Do you think employers should also be asked whether they cover blood transfusions? Because there are religions that don't like those as well. This is simply a matter of claiming religious freedom to discriminate, and all the court cases that have been brought up have been rightly rejected.
And it's not religious institutions, it's secular organizations run by religious institutions that must comply with secular rules. Yeah, I used institution a bit too broad since it has a strict definition here. I don't want to get off topic, I'm talking regulations and I'm saying mandatory, "If you sell insurance you MUST cover x, y, and z" is part of regulation's red tape. For your discrimination charge, talk about some separation of church and state only working one way. Have a Catholic school teach abstinence or even a liberal condom message, but now your abortion-inducing drugs and contraception are provided with enrollment! Talk about state-sponsored hypocrisy. Ten commandments in courthouses is unacceptable to your conscience, and prayers offered at graduations is psychologically hurting children, yet Catholic schools must act against their conscience because health insurance just got one more regulation. Sigh, and as a further sidenote not every case has been "rightly" rejected. And no, I consider responsible adults able to ask whether their insurance includes condoms and contraceptives just as they would copays and approved doctor lists. Calling contraceptives on the same level as blood transfusions during hospitalization makes me have a hard time taking you seriously. Multiple insurance plans are offered by insurers with various costs, and what they charge in copays for prescription drugs and doctor visits, as well as doctor visits per year. Regulating away more and more choice in this is not a vital function of the federal government, and are powers better left debated at a state level.
This would be the opposite of regulation and hand-tying. This would be treating contraception like any other medicine or treatment. Employers should not get between people and their doctors. Employers should not be the ones making medical decisions for their employees. You are the one making it harder for people to get medicine that they need for absolutely no reason. That's the red tape. And even though it's called "contraception" it is not just used for sexual purpose. It has enumerable health benefits to women that you are ignoring and it is quite insulting.
I'm not exactly sure why you threw out the blood transfusion thing, because that has been brought up in court cases in the exact same way (as well as vaccinations). Female contraception has been shown to be effective treatment to prevent cancer and numerous other diseases. Female contraception is not a condom. It is hormonal treatment. And this is treatment that medical experts have determined is essential for women's welfare. And the fact that you are relating female contraception to condoms makes me think that you have no idea what you're talking about and I'm certainly not going to take you seriously.
The court case you brought up is a temporary measure, is a dangerous precedent, and will hopefully be overturned soon:
http://www.aclu.org/blog/reproductive-freedom-religion-belief/courts-ruling-allow-employer-discriminate-out-step
Religion is not the right to discriminate. The ACLU deals with freedom of religion and establishment of religion all the time. They are constantly fighting against the establishment of religion by the government while constantly fighting to uphold individual's rights to religious expression (for Christians and non-Christians alike). However Religion is not the right to discriminate, and they recognize that.
|
You can't argue that the (federal) government shouldn't be involved but the state has a role unless it is a traditionally local issue. Healthcare isn't really a local issue, since treatment and diagnosis are largely across county and state lines. The best you could argue is a set of initiatives targeting specific diseases and treatments due to geographic and demographic concerns.
|
|
|
It's amazing watching this guy avoid the question of "revenue increases" when talking about Simpson-Bowles.
There is no "compromise" without revenue increases so it sounds like more pandering.
|
Some stimulus research:
CNBC pointed out a research note that cited three independent studies suggesting that stimulus spending doesn't help during a period of over-indebtedness.
Some highlights:
If the effects of excessive indebtedness (low growth and low interest rates) are addressed by additional debt, or by debt utilized for investments that cannot produce an income stream to repay the obligations, then this even higher level of debt will serve to perpetuate the period of slow economic growth and unusually low bond yields.
In the eleven quarters of this expansion, the growth of real per capita GDP was the lowest for all of the comparable post-WWII business cycle expansions (Table 2). Real per capita disposable personal income has risen by a scant 0.1% annual rate, remarkably weak when compared with the 2.9% post-war average. It is often said that economic conditions would have been much worse if the government had not run massive budget deficits and the Fed had not implemented extraordinary policies. This whole premise is wrong. In all likelihood the governmental measures made conditions worse, and the poor results reflect the counterproductive nature of fiscal and monetary policies. None of these numerous actions produced anything more than transitory improvement in economic conditions, followed by a quick retreat to a faltering pattern while leaving the economy saddled with even greater indebtedness. The diminutive gain in this expansion is clearly consistent with the view that government actions have hurt, rather than helped, economic performance.
The note came from an investment company called Hoisington and for anyone interested can be found here.
|
Employers should not get between employees and their doctor, and government should show more restraint getting between insurers and their clients. If a certain coverage is desired, that's a demand to be offered for a cost. I had no idea that contraceptives was slang for women's health pills with a small side effect of preventing pregnancy. I believe in shopping for plans, and more choice amongst the frill coverage some may desire ... the same way no deductible plans or high deductible plans function in the free market. Government forcing employers shopping for health insurance to buy multiple things their employees may or may not want is a cost increase on them and the wrong way to go about it.
If I'm generally out of step and contraceptives no longer mean medication to prevent pregnancy, but medicine to forward women's health, and a legitimate cancer treatment and who knows what else ... then I stand corrected. I heard none of this during debate on the bill, and I only remember Sandra Fluke speaking out on the issue. I would also need enlightenment on why insurance companies must NOT include a copay for this particular type of medication. I have forever had and purchased health insurance for myself the included a relatively high deductible and copay on all prescription medication. It would seem a sheer demonstration of Congresses power to act on what they think insurance companies should and should not do through their power of regulation. I want more choice and less regulation on insurance companies so they can better run their business according to what their customers want, and not want their federal government wants.
You can't argue that the (federal) government shouldn't be involved but the state has a role unless it is a traditionally local issue. Healthcare isn't really a local issue, since treatment and diagnosis are largely across county and state lines. The best you could argue is a set of initiatives targeting specific diseases and treatments due to geographic and demographic concerns.
There has been traditionally laws set in states regulating what must and must not be covered by health insurance plans. I refer you to just the contraceptives as they stand in state law here. States are more responsive to their citizen's wants and are allocated more broad powers under the Constitution, as it originally stood. Consider separately, as always came up when PPACA was pushed through the state rules on car insurance. Buying it in New Hampshire is radically different than buying it in California. If the regulations are too onerous and the plans expensive, you have the ability to weigh in on state legislators or move out of state. The cost of the insurance plans vary based on that states requirements and what you want to be covered. Is it just third party liability or first party coverage? This has a direct effect on the cost of my policy, and if some politician said that having both types of coverage is a universally good idea, my insurance costs are going to go up! You had better believe assemblymen and state senators are going to feel the heat from their citizens if this change went through, just as if health insurers were required to include non-prescription weight loss drugs and protein bars by law.
Still, latest Rasmussin report shows 52% of likely voters favor repeal of PPACA, including 41% that strongly favor repeal (+/- 3 pts). NBC/WSJ poll showed a 44/40 split to oppose in all surveyed. This is reflective not only of citizen opposition for community ratings and the non-purchase penalty, but also the regulations on employers. Deloitte survey of businesses employing 50+ workers find that 9% anticipate dropping coverage in the next one to three years (up from CBO estimate of 7%) source. It remains a big issue and it sits unpopular among the public at large. Romney would do well to lay its signing at Obama's feet in the debates.
|
If Romney wanted to shake off the London diaster with a fresh start in Israel he pretty much screwed that up as well.
Mitt Romney arrived in Jerusalem and was scheduled to attend a fundraiser on Monday but his campaign announced "that it would block the news media from covering the event," the Washington Post reports.
"The campaign's decision to close the fundraiser to the press violates the ground rules it negotiated with news organizations in April... Under the agreement, a pool of wire, print and television reporters can cover every Romney fundraiser held in public venues, including hotels and country clubs. The campaign does not allow media coverage of fundraisers held in private residences."
A spokesman "declined to explain the campaign's decision to violate protocol with the Jerusalem event."
Mark Halperin: "With Sheldon Adelson expected to be in the house (the King David hotel) and a restive traveling press corps, this might not be the best way, however, to change the trajectory of the media narrative."
Source
|
On July 29 2012 06:26 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:If Romney wanted to shake off the London diaster with a fresh start in Israel he pretty much screwed that up as well. Show nested quote +Mitt Romney arrived in Jerusalem and was scheduled to attend a fundraiser on Monday but his campaign announced "that it would block the news media from covering the event," the Washington Post reports.
"The campaign's decision to close the fundraiser to the press violates the ground rules it negotiated with news organizations in April... Under the agreement, a pool of wire, print and television reporters can cover every Romney fundraiser held in public venues, including hotels and country clubs. The campaign does not allow media coverage of fundraisers held in private residences."
A spokesman "declined to explain the campaign's decision to violate protocol with the Jerusalem event."
Mark Halperin: "With Sheldon Adelson expected to be in the house (the King David hotel) and a restive traveling press corps, this might not be the best way, however, to change the trajectory of the media narrative." Source
Wow. This guy wants to be the president?
He won't release his tax returns.
He won't take responsibility for his career at Bain.
He won't stand up to his own party.
Now he can't handle foreign press.
I thought Israel was your ally. I thought Romney was best buds with everyone over there. It's a partisan fundraiser, not a landmark speech on foreign policy in Cairo. This is supposed to be easy, straightforward glad-handing.
I'm in the David Frum camp when it comes to Romney. As bad as your economy is you can't convince me that he would be a better leader than Obama. The guy is just weak.
|
Danglars, contraceptive coverage does not increase prices. This has already been confirmed by the insurance industries. Health insurance companies said they were fine with the regulation to cover it even if the religious employers didn't want it as it would lower costs for them. To be more clear: contraception coverage lowers costs for insurance companies. Religious employers are trying to curtail even that, and are trying to more finely determine what kind of medicines and treatments their employees can have. As you can imagine, this is pretty unprecedented. I'm a little confused by your ignorance, because Sandra Fluke did talk about ovarian cysts in her speech and everything.
I don't know much about copays or whatever, but contraceptive coverage is also important to eliminating the cycle of poverty for lower income women. We do not want lower income having more children than they can afford, and this has socioeconomic value. Empowerment of women along with contraception has been proven to be one of the strongest, if not the strongest, ways to battle poverty.
Citing reports on how people want to repeal the law means nothing, because if you read polls that ask specific policies inside the law, they are overwhelmingly positive (and even quite positive from republicans). The big one that people really don't like is the mandate (ironically the conservative part of the bill), and that's pretty much the only reason why people want to repeal it.
|
When did politics start to turn into theater? My governments officials hardly keep their word. And your Obama did totally nothing he was saying to do after he is elected. I mean how can you pick politician to elect when all they say are lies? Was there ever president in last 50 years elected in US, that had low charisma and great brains?
Do you people ever pick leader for his achievements instead of his talks? Well all I can say that you US citizens are screwed since there is possibility to pick 1 out of 2. And both of them are terrible.
|
Romney in Israel:
Mitt Romney on Saturday explicitly sought for the first time to turn the Arab Spring into an issue in the United States presidential race. In an interview with an Israeli newspaper to set up his visit to Israel this weekend, Mr. Romney made several provocative statements distinguishing himself from President Obama.
Mr. Romney discussed the Arab Spring revolts as a problem rather than progress. He asserted against some evidence that the Obama administration had abandoned an agenda of pushing for democratic reform pursued by George W. Bush, and he characterized even the most moderate and Western-friendly Islamists – those in the political parties leading legislatures in Tunisia and Morocco – as political opponents. The last runs counter to the Obama administration’s strategy, endorsed by some Republicans in Congress, of building alliances with moderate Islamists where possible.
Source
|
On July 29 2012 03:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Some stimulus research: CNBC pointed out a research note that cited three independent studies suggesting that stimulus spending doesn't help during a period of over-indebtedness. Some highlights: Show nested quote +If the effects of excessive indebtedness (low growth and low interest rates) are addressed by additional debt, or by debt utilized for investments that cannot produce an income stream to repay the obligations, then this even higher level of debt will serve to perpetuate the period of slow economic growth and unusually low bond yields. Show nested quote +In the eleven quarters of this expansion, the growth of real per capita GDP was the lowest for all of the comparable post-WWII business cycle expansions (Table 2). Real per capita disposable personal income has risen by a scant 0.1% annual rate, remarkably weak when compared with the 2.9% post-war average. It is often said that economic conditions would have been much worse if the government had not run massive budget deficits and the Fed had not implemented extraordinary policies. This whole premise is wrong. In all likelihood the governmental measures made conditions worse, and the poor results reflect the counterproductive nature of fiscal and monetary policies. None of these numerous actions produced anything more than transitory improvement in economic conditions, followed by a quick retreat to a faltering pattern while leaving the economy saddled with even greater indebtedness. The diminutive gain in this expansion is clearly consistent with the view that government actions have hurt, rather than helped, economic performance. The note came from an investment company called Hoisington and for anyone interested can be found here.
The studies seem to focus more on overall indebtedness causing the pain, with conjecture on government debt playing a role.
|
On July 29 2012 03:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Some stimulus research: CNBC pointed out a research note that cited three independent studies suggesting that stimulus spending doesn't help during a period of over-indebtedness. Some highlights: Show nested quote +If the effects of excessive indebtedness (low growth and low interest rates) are addressed by additional debt, or by debt utilized for investments that cannot produce an income stream to repay the obligations, then this even higher level of debt will serve to perpetuate the period of slow economic growth and unusually low bond yields. Show nested quote +In the eleven quarters of this expansion, the growth of real per capita GDP was the lowest for all of the comparable post-WWII business cycle expansions (Table 2). Real per capita disposable personal income has risen by a scant 0.1% annual rate, remarkably weak when compared with the 2.9% post-war average. It is often said that economic conditions would have been much worse if the government had not run massive budget deficits and the Fed had not implemented extraordinary policies. This whole premise is wrong. In all likelihood the governmental measures made conditions worse, and the poor results reflect the counterproductive nature of fiscal and monetary policies. None of these numerous actions produced anything more than transitory improvement in economic conditions, followed by a quick retreat to a faltering pattern while leaving the economy saddled with even greater indebtedness. The diminutive gain in this expansion is clearly consistent with the view that government actions have hurt, rather than helped, economic performance. The note came from an investment company called Hoisington and for anyone interested can be found here.
Wow, just wow.
This is facepalm worthy.
The first quote is saying "if debt is the problem, how can more debt be the solution", a line that is commonly repeated by economic illiterates. Everyone's debt is another's asset. If too much debt is the problem, then why is that not offset by the large amounts of assets that everyone has?
So what matters is not the level of debt, but rather the distribution of debt. Most of this debt is held my households, which are debt-constrained, cannot spend, and thus cannot boost aggregate demand. The quote says that government debt can't make the situation better because debt is the problem, but the government is not debt-constrained. The government can borrow at negative real interest rates, which means that the government can spend free money to boost aggregate demand. So not all debt is created equal. More (government) debt can solve the problem of too much (household) debt.
The second quote says that fiscal policy and monetary policy are useless, and offers no reason, other than claiming, it's bad -- really bad. Even conservative economists agree that monetary policy is effective. You would have to be a crank to think otherwise.
|
On July 29 2012 10:24 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2012 03:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Some stimulus research: CNBC pointed out a research note that cited three independent studies suggesting that stimulus spending doesn't help during a period of over-indebtedness. Some highlights: If the effects of excessive indebtedness (low growth and low interest rates) are addressed by additional debt, or by debt utilized for investments that cannot produce an income stream to repay the obligations, then this even higher level of debt will serve to perpetuate the period of slow economic growth and unusually low bond yields. In the eleven quarters of this expansion, the growth of real per capita GDP was the lowest for all of the comparable post-WWII business cycle expansions (Table 2). Real per capita disposable personal income has risen by a scant 0.1% annual rate, remarkably weak when compared with the 2.9% post-war average. It is often said that economic conditions would have been much worse if the government had not run massive budget deficits and the Fed had not implemented extraordinary policies. This whole premise is wrong. In all likelihood the governmental measures made conditions worse, and the poor results reflect the counterproductive nature of fiscal and monetary policies. None of these numerous actions produced anything more than transitory improvement in economic conditions, followed by a quick retreat to a faltering pattern while leaving the economy saddled with even greater indebtedness. The diminutive gain in this expansion is clearly consistent with the view that government actions have hurt, rather than helped, economic performance. The note came from an investment company called Hoisington and for anyone interested can be found here. Wow, just wow. This is facepalm worthy. The first quote is saying "if debt is the problem, how can more debt be the solution", a line that is commonly repeated by economic illiterates. Everyone's debt is another's asset. If too much debt is the problem, then why is that not offset by the large amounts of assets that everyone has? So what matters is not the level of debt, but rather the distribution of debt. Most of this debt is held my households, which are debt-constrained, cannot spend, and thus cannot boost aggregate demand. The quote says that government debt can't make the situation better because debt is the problem, but the government is not debt-constrained. The government can borrow at negative real interest rates, which means that the government can spend free money to boost aggregate demand. So not all debt is created equal. More (government) debt can solve the problem of too much (household) debt. The second quote says that fiscal policy and monetary policy are useless, and offers no reason, other than claiming, it's bad -- really bad. Even conservative economists agree that monetary policy is effective. You would have to be a crank to think otherwise.
You may want to read the whole thing before declaring it facepalm worthy based on your general knowledge of economics.
The claim that fiscal policy is useless is only in relation to a debt crisis. It is not a blanket statement! It is a specific statement based off of research on previous debt crisis in the US and Japan.
"Free money" is also a misnomer - surely you are suggesting that it is a free lunch? The "free" to the government is paid for by a loss in real income to the lender (households).
|
On July 29 2012 10:24 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2012 03:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Some stimulus research: CNBC pointed out a research note that cited three independent studies suggesting that stimulus spending doesn't help during a period of over-indebtedness. Some highlights: If the effects of excessive indebtedness (low growth and low interest rates) are addressed by additional debt, or by debt utilized for investments that cannot produce an income stream to repay the obligations, then this even higher level of debt will serve to perpetuate the period of slow economic growth and unusually low bond yields. In the eleven quarters of this expansion, the growth of real per capita GDP was the lowest for all of the comparable post-WWII business cycle expansions (Table 2). Real per capita disposable personal income has risen by a scant 0.1% annual rate, remarkably weak when compared with the 2.9% post-war average. It is often said that economic conditions would have been much worse if the government had not run massive budget deficits and the Fed had not implemented extraordinary policies. This whole premise is wrong. In all likelihood the governmental measures made conditions worse, and the poor results reflect the counterproductive nature of fiscal and monetary policies. None of these numerous actions produced anything more than transitory improvement in economic conditions, followed by a quick retreat to a faltering pattern while leaving the economy saddled with even greater indebtedness. The diminutive gain in this expansion is clearly consistent with the view that government actions have hurt, rather than helped, economic performance. The note came from an investment company called Hoisington and for anyone interested can be found here. Wow, just wow. This is facepalm worthy. The first quote is saying "if debt is the problem, how can more debt be the solution", a line that is commonly repeated by economic illiterates. Everyone's debt is another's asset. If too much debt is the problem, then why is that not offset by the large amounts of assets that everyone has?
So what matters is not the level of debt, but rather the distribution of debt. Most of this debt is held my households, which are debt-constrained, cannot spend, and thus cannot boost aggregate demand. The quote says that government debt can't make the situation better because debt is the problem, but the government is not debt-constrained. The government can borrow at negative real interest rates, which means that the government can spend free money to boost aggregate demand. So not all debt is created equal. More (government) debt can solve the problem of too much (household) debt. The second quote says that fiscal policy and monetary policy are useless, and offers no reason, other than claiming, it's bad -- really bad. Even conservative economists agree that monetary policy is effective. You would have to be a crank to think otherwise.
Have we already forgotten what happened in 2008 and 2009?
|
On July 29 2012 08:11 M4nkind wrote:
Was there ever president in last 50 years elected in US, that had low charisma and great brains?
Bush Sr for sure. Not sure what exactly you mean by "great" brains but Nixon fits a smart and non-charismatic description. Carter was really smart; wasn't he not particularly charismatic? I don't recall the narrative on that.
Charisma helps but rarely is the president actually as dumb as his critics say. And it's also true that politicians have to say stupid things to appease stupid or ideologically extreme people.
Do you people ever pick leader for his achievements instead of his talks? Well all I can say that you US citizens are screwed since there is possibility to pick 1 out of 2. And both of them are terrible.
Well that is the problem - you have to pick one of the two, or cast a meaningless protest vote (which is what I plan to do since the place I live won't even be close). But fwiw, Romney was WAY better than all of the other major Republican candidates save for Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman... I mean, Bachmann and Santorum are actual lunatics, Gingrich and Perry are pretty much tools (and Perry an idiot to boot), and Cain never really had his shit together as far as understanding politics/policy even though I think he's a reasonably smart guy. Romney's very smart I think, he just has to pander to a lot of crazy/senile people who have disproportionate power since they are very reliable/motivated voters.
|
Brains or ideas sadly seems to have very little impact on who is chosen as president judging by recent history. There's the charisma presidents (Obama, Reagan, Clinton, etc.) and the lovable "i'd love to have a beer with him" presidents (Carter, Bush). Both those assets majorly helped them all. Since TV came about either of those traits has been on the winners side every time it seems. Even dudes like Bush sr. and Nixon were shockingly more likable or charismatic than the complete losers they ran against. It's definitely not a good sign for Romney. He's very Kerry-like... the man that somehow lost to dubya...
|
The Republican saber ratting begins:
JERUSALEM—Speaking against the backdrop of the historic Old City, Mitt Romney signaled he supports Israel's right to "defend itself" against its enemies and said "any and all measures" should be considered in the world's efforts to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
The Republican candidate said preventing a nuclear Iran should be America's "highest national security priority." And while he argued that diplomatic efforts should continue, Romney insisted that all options should be on the table in dealing with Iran, including a military strike.
"We should employ any and all measures to dissuade the Iranian regime from its nuclear course, and it is our fervent hope that diplomatic and economic measures will do so," Romney said in an outdoor speech at Mishkenot Sha'anamim, a cultural center in Jerusalem. "In the final analysis, of course, no option should be excluded. We recognize Israel's right to defend itself, and that it is right for America to stand with you. "
Romney pushed back against criticism that those arguing in favor of leaving the military option open are "reckless and provocative and inviting war." "The opposite is true. We are the true peacemakers," Romney said.
He argued that the threat of military action would put more pressure on the ayatollahs in Iran, whom he accused of "testing our moral defenses."
Source
|
On July 30 2012 05:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The Republican saber ratting begins: Show nested quote +JERUSALEM—Speaking against the backdrop of the historic Old City, Mitt Romney signaled he supports Israel's right to "defend itself" against its enemies and said "any and all measures" should be considered in the world's efforts to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
The Republican candidate said preventing a nuclear Iran should be America's "highest national security priority." And while he argued that diplomatic efforts should continue, Romney insisted that all options should be on the table in dealing with Iran, including a military strike.
"We should employ any and all measures to dissuade the Iranian regime from its nuclear course, and it is our fervent hope that diplomatic and economic measures will do so," Romney said in an outdoor speech at Mishkenot Sha'anamim, a cultural center in Jerusalem. "In the final analysis, of course, no option should be excluded. We recognize Israel's right to defend itself, and that it is right for America to stand with you. "
Romney pushed back against criticism that those arguing in favor of leaving the military option open are "reckless and provocative and inviting war." "The opposite is true. We are the true peacemakers," Romney said.
He argued that the threat of military action would put more pressure on the ayatollahs in Iran, whom he accused of "testing our moral defenses." Source
The sad thing is the unpopular ayatollahs would probably love a military strike to unite the populace.
|
On a side note, I am impressed at the number of anti-Obama ads showing up during the Olympics. It will be interesting to see whether this ad blitz is more effective than Obama's ad blitz from last month.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
