Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2010 - 10:31am PT
|
bookworm said - oh, about that whole keeping your health care plan...er...never mind:
Health care plans have changed constantly for decades. Find me one person who has had the exact same coverage on the exact same plan for more than a year. Your health insurance company is constantly making adjustments, changing payouts and dropping or adding coverage for different things and they still call it the "same plan."
Oh hey look your article even backs up what I just said while also completely discrediting the spin you are trying to put on it:
The main issue in the 83-page regulation is how to deal with what the government calls "grandfathered" health plans.
Those are plans that predated the health care law and are exempt from many, but not all, of its consumer protections. Lawmakers created the special category to deliver on Obama's promise that people can keep the coverage they have if they like it.
But health plans change frequently. Premiums and copayments keep rising. Coverage is expanded for some services and restricted for others. Lawmakers asked regulators to spell out how much an employer can change a plan and still claim it to be grandfathered, exempting it from closer federal regulation.
So yeah..Obama is going to make your health care plan SUBJECT TO CONSUMER PROTECTION. Oh snap here comes the gestapo. WE ARE ALL BEING FOOLED. THE CAKE IS A LIE.
If you want to be able to spin that Obama is making people actually change plans you're going to need to come up with something a little better than an article that actually disproves your own statement (though that certainly makes my job easier).
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2010 - 10:46am PT
|
Hey HDDJ, don't expect too much from BrainWorm.
He is a broken record.
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2010 - 01:00am PT
|
The Boxer statement was probably taken out of context, or she was talking about something else
why do you have to get so stuck on such a stupid quote from her
Thats so ridiculous, to start a big thing about something so obviously wrong,
No, the statement was not taken out of context. She requested time on the floor of the Senate to enter this into the record. I heard the entire statement and it is on record, this was not some conversation with a reporter or some sound byte.
I am pleased however to see that you agree with me that the quote is stupid and she was obviously wrong.
Now we are getting somewhere.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2010 - 02:15am PT
|
Well done, Kris!
John
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2010 - 05:41am PT
|
I'm not so sure it is stupid.
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2010 - 10:00am PT
|
Just remember, a vote for Carly is a vote for India!
"Outsourcing is rightsourcing."
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2010 - 10:09am PT
|
K-wrote:No, the statement was not taken out of context. She requested time on the floor of the Senate to enter this into the record. I heard the entire statement and it is on record, this was not some conversation with a reporter or some sound byte.
I am pleased however to see that you agree with me that the quote is stupid and she was obviously wrong.
Now we are getting somewhere.
Wonder if you had the same passion about Boxer's statement as for Bush and his on WMD's? :-)
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2010 - 10:56am PT
|
Out sourcing, off shoring and deregulation...
Thank the corporatist of the Repugnicants.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2010 - 11:43am PT
|
Uh,
Philo
Bill Clinton was behind and signed the "Royalty Relief Act" That eliminated the 16% royalty for deep water drilling.
BHO set a record for BP contributions to a pol.
There are at least three successive administrations responsible for this mess.
On another subject, this is going to end up being a fine campaign add.
http://www.breitbart.tv/congressman-assaults-student-on-washington-sidewalk/
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2010 - 01:07pm PT
|
There you go. In fattrad's world America is marginally useful.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2010 - 01:21pm PT
|
Actually, it's the theory of comparative advantage. Even though American workers are, by and large, the most productive in the world, and more productive than workers in China in virtually any manufacturing process, we can't make everything. The Chinese produce items where the difference in their productivity and ours makes the least difference.
If you want to plunge us from a big recession into an enormous depression, one that would dwarf the Great Depression, just restrain foreign trade. Without foreign trade, the whole world would be sent into an economic dark age.
There is, also, the moral question so completely ignored by the reactionaries (most of whom call themselves "progressives"), alluded to by fattrad: Why is it moral that we try to keep impoverished those in the world who are least materially well-off?
John
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2010 - 03:26pm PT
|
Glad you asked, Ricky. It depends on the status quo to which "progressives" wish to return. The intense regulation, government provision of services and distrust of the productivity of specialization remind me of mercantilism so, to me, that agenda seeks a return to the policies of the United Kingdom in the mid-18th century. It amounts to a reaction to the industrial revolution and to capitalism that brought about a general and universal increase in prosperity.
This desire reflects itself in everything from "buy local" hostility to "corporate farming" to a desire to tax income (which, by definition, is the change in wealth) at high rates. Under mercantilism, the government essentially controlled the economy because only those favored by the government could engage in important trades or businesses. This helped bring about the American revolution. "Progressives" still have problems with that (witness their hostility to freedom of speech if the speech is from a party they dislike).
It's a wonderful coup to have made the "progressive" label stick for such outdated, backward-looking policies. I choose, however, not to accept the label at face value.
John
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2010 - 04:19pm PT
|
someone needs to ask the mysterious Democrat US Senate candidate of South Carolina if he supports the F'ed up Progressive agenda. Inquiring minds?
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2010 - 04:24pm PT
|
"There are at least three successive administrations responsible for this mess."
I tell ya, it's the rare day that TGT makes a comment that I agree with, but today is that day.
Making the Gulf Spill a partisan issue is pointless, infuriating, and reflects more interest in vendettas than it does in solutions to a tragedy for which we all share responsibility.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2010 - 04:29pm PT
|
Making the Gulf Spill a partisan issue is pointless, infuriating, and reflects more interest in vendettas than it does in solutions to a tragedy for which we all share responsibility.
Amen!
John
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2010 - 04:33pm PT
|
Ricky,
Your definition of "progressive" actually sounds progressive, although you shouldn't limit it to Democrats. The early 20th century, under Republican administrations and congresses, was the start of the "progessive ear." Here in California, Hiram Johnson and Earl Warren were two Republican governors who were also progressive.
Unfortunately, the press and the left-wing Democrats have arrogated to the Marin County types the term "progressive" so if there's a conflation, that's the cause of it.
John
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2010 - 04:35pm PT
|
"Why is it moral that we try to keep impoverished those in the world who are least materially well-off?"
Making the argument that by reducing our imports & foreign trade creates a moral issue is after-the-fact & beside-the-point. The US didn't start towards foreign trade and imports because it did a service to others in the world who are impoverished...they did so because the potential for profit increased. Only after this profit potential become clear did these industries try to rationalize their actions as 'improving the lives of others in the world'. You can bet your arse that if it wasn't profitable to off-shore manufacture, companies wouldn't do it...no matter how negative the impact on other cultures.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2010 - 04:42pm PT
|
To continue...
The only reason off-shore manufacturing is prevalent these days is because developing industries saw the potential to manufacture stuff less expensively. This is a basic capitalist principle, and if you can set aside all of the other impacts such practices have on the domestic economies, business owners, and foreign cultures, it's a logical direction for industry to take.
It's also a basic capitalist principle that consumer interests drive production- the choice to 'buy locally' is the singlemost powerful tool that any individual holds in this country. It's not 'reactionary' or 'progressive'...it's simply making the statement that I prefer to support local business that makes quality product and shares my concern for the environmental and economic impacts of consumption.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2010 - 04:52pm PT
|
Again, fattrad, 'everyone progresses' is a rationalization. Companies aren't offshoring primarily because they have high-minded aspirations of improving the lives of others around the world....they are doing so because the profit potential is greater. Period.
Edit: If anyone would be clinically clear about this, I would expect that to be you, fattrad.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!