I'm interested in the issue I commented on, which is whether zoning regulations are illegal takings similar to fracking bans. I'm not interested in telling people what gender their bed partners should be.
Printable View
I'm interested in the issue I commented on, which is whether zoning regulations are illegal takings similar to fracking bans. I'm not interested in telling people what gender their bed partners should be.
[QUOTE=Dickhead;442468]I'm interested in the issue I commented on, which is whether zoning regulations are illegal takings similar to fracking bans. [/QUOTE]You're not asking the right question. Fracking occurs underground, and I'm very skeptical that it causes environmental damage. I don't think it should be an issue. The question you should be asking is whether drilling an oil or gas well in someone's backyard is an illegal taking. The criticism directed towards fracking should actually be leveled towards faulty cement jobs or problems with the plumbing and surface footprint associated with wells.
Part of the answer to your quesetion would involve timing. If I own a house, and then some commercial development company comes in and gets government to re-zone an area and to force me to sell, then I think that could be an illegal taking. That may be similar to the situation you describe. The oil company has already paid money for the oil and gas leases, paid money for geological and seismic work, and then is deprived of that asset by a ban instituted after the leases were obtained.
I can see both sides to banning drilling in populated areas in Colorado. Banning it in rural areas is stupid, especially where the production is primarily natural gas. Anyone who believes global warming is real and who wants to ban fracking to produce natural gas is indeed an environmental nut job. Natural gas has done much, much more to reduce carbon emissions in the USA than any renewable energy source. Natural gas displaces coal for electricity generation, and coal emits much more CO2 per BTU than natural gas.
[URL]http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/04/what-the-hells-the-presidency-for/358630/4/[/URL]
It's a big read. Hope you can handle it. Why Gruber is a side-show.
There are people who can't get over the ACA being passed and how it was passed. They claimed that they should have been consulted, wined and dined(no leadership) to have their views presented. And then, they would have no complaints if a health reform bill with universal care had been passed. Bi-partisanship, yeah right. These are the same people who would have opposed the Civil Rights Act had they been there in 2004.
ACA was the legacy that Obama wanted to hang his hat on. Do or Die. Mission accomplished. Even at the expense of Immigration Reform, although he will attempt to do something about it as he lame-duck to 2016. The Latinos are about to stone Obama, but wait, they must. It will be the Democrat's baby for 2016. Republicans can self-immolate on this issue, but it's their choice.
And sure, ACA is full of holes, but it is a beach-head secured. And if you are one of those soldiers that Obama sacrificed and left to die, I salute you. For you, Arlington awaits.
There is no movement to ban fracking in the rural areas. Rednecks love fracking for whatever reason. It's the cities on the Front Range that want to ban it, or in my case, the county. Actually it was a moratorium and not a ban. I've never lived anywhere that I knew of that used coal to generate power and I know I'm supposed to shut the fuck up about stuff I don't know anything about but coal just seems icky to me. Natural gas I like, although natural gas heating is not the best thing in the world for you. You're always going to have environmental issues in extractive industries, so my thinking is to minimize the need for and use of extracted products. I don't look for it to happen overnight.
One thing I was looking at recently was how the factory capacity utilization ratio still has not gotten back to historical norms. I think if capacity were tighter there might be more incentive to look for alternative energy sources, and for innovation in general. Now, of course, with gasoline prices sinking like an Italian cruise ship, there will be less incentive in the short run. The energy industry has repeated quite a few of its mistakes and if oil prices stay low for any length of time, some of the latest investments in the shale side of it might not work out. There are still several ghost towns in CO and WY from the last shale bust. Of course, there are rusty derricks all over TX and OK, etc., from conventional drilling's inevitable cycles so why should shale be any different?
But nobody's answering my question: What the fuck is so special about fracking? My community can decide it does not want massage parlors or e-cigarettes or angle parking or buildings over X feet high or almost anything else. So why can't they ban fracking if that's the community's desire? The one thing I came up with is that zoning changes often grandfather in existing uses, for the reasons Tiny mentions, but apparently we can't even ban it for newly purchased land. So, to me, it just looks like special treatment for the energy industry.
[QUOTE=Dickhead;442471]I've never lived anywhere that I knew of that used coal to generate power and I know I'm supposed to shut the fuck up about stuff I don't know anything about but coal just seems icky to me. [/QUOTE]I'd be very surprised if you never lived in a place that used at least some electricity generated from coal, considering about 67% of the electricity generated was from fossil fuel (coal, natural gas, and petroleum), with 39% attributed from coal.
In 2013, energy sources and percent share of total electricity generation were.
Coal 39%.
Natural Gas 27%.
Nuclear 19%.
Hydropower 7%.
Other Renewable 6%.
Biomass 1.48%.
Geothermal 0.41%.
Solar 0.23%.
Wind 4.13%.
Petroleum 1%.
Other Gases < 1%.
[QUOTE=Dickhead;442471]Natural gas I like, although natural gas heating is not the best thing in the world for you. You're always going to have environmental issues in extractive industries, so my thinking is to minimize the need for and use of extracted products. I don't look for it to happen overnight.[/QUOTE]I also like gas, but what's wrong with heating with gas? Gas is used safely for cooking, hot water, and heating in a huge number of American homes.
I don't have a thing against alternative energy sources when they become economically feasible, but they are not without problems of their own. I don't think you'll see fossil fuel energy go away in our lifetimes.
I dunno bro. Maybe. I grew up with heating oil. It could be that CO was using coal fired plants in the 70s and 80s. I did know it was still the largest single source. On (forced air) natural gas heating, it's not good for your skin and your sinuses (your hair too according to my lady friends, but I haven't actually noticed that) and if you don't clean the ducts regularly some people can get respiratory issues. That is probably more of an issue in the dry climates I've lived in than maybe where y'all are from. I'm not saying it's unsafe, just not as healthy as say radiant hot water heating. My favorite kind of heating is those tubes under the floor, similar to what they use for driveways in some places. Quieter too. I spent a summer in college putting those things in, hard fucking work too. I guess it might be the case with natural gas, in some locations, that the ultimate consumer might not know how the gas they are using is generated? Don't the utilities kinda buy that shit from wherever?
Let's shoot for a modest goal. I believe that in 20 years less than half the private cars will use fossil fuels and virtually none of the public transit. And the mileage of the remaining fossil fuel cars will be say 75 or 80 MPG. We can do that, right? I also think there is a lot of potential energy savings to be had in these apps where you can control your thermostat from your cell phone. Shit, I live in a three year old townhome and it doesn't even have a programmable thermostat (not that my friend who owns it would be able to figure out how to use one if we had one, but still). Seems like that should be a requirement for all new construction.
[QUOTE=RevBS;442470][URL]http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/04/what-the-hells-the-presidency-for/358630/4/[/URL]
It's a big read. Hope you can handle it. Why Gruber is a side-show.
There are people who can't get over the ACA being passed and how it was passed. They claimed that they should have been consulted, wined and dined(no leadership) to have their views presented. And then, they would have no complaints if a health reform bill with universal care had been passed. Bi-partisanship, yeah right. These are the same people who would have opposed the Civil Rights Act had they been there in 2004.
ACA was the legacy that Obama wanted to hang his hat on. Do or Die. Mission accomplished. Even at the expense of Immigration Reform, although he will attempt to do something about it as he lame-duck to 2016. The Latinos are about to stone Obama, but wait, they must. It will be the Democrat's baby for 2016. Republicans can self-immolate on this issue, but it's their choice.
And sure, ACA is full of holes, but it is a beach-head secured. And if you are one of those soldiers that Obama sacrificed and left to die, I salute you. For you, Arlington awaits.[/QUOTE]So, in your opinion, the end does in fact justify the means?
[QUOTE=Jackson;442477]So, in your opinion, the end does in fact justify the means?[/QUOTE]The "means" were that the ACA was passed by majority vote in both chambers of the US Congress, signed into law by the sitting US President and later declared Constitutional by the SCOTUS. The "end" is that the USA finally offers affordable healthcare to all its citizens and becomes the last member of the civilized world to do so.
Get over it!
The people can have health care.
[QUOTE=Jackson;442477]So, in your opinion, the end does in fact justify the means?[/QUOTE]
Regardless of what the means were, I don't think the merits of the ACA can be judged for many years, perhaps as long as an entire generation. My guess is that one of its biggest benefits will turn out to be the encouragement of entrepreneurship and small business incubation, by freeing creative talent from dependence on employers due to their dependence on employer health insurance. Possibly maybe perhaps some of the silly math I've pointed out will be partially somewhat corrected, maybe. Rates went down in much of my state due to new entrants to the marketplace, so I think the existence of the government subsidies is attracting more competition. Note the difference between the subsidy being given to the consumer, creating demand and competition, rather than to the provider, which would stifle competition. So I think they got that part of it right.
But it will be hard to put a dollar value on a healthier population, if one indeed does result. It will be hard to put a dollar value on the increased freedom of movement that labor will have, but it should increase efficiency in the long run. It will be hard to put a dollar value on the social benefits of fewer unwanted babies. Another result I predict is that personal bankruptcies will drop substantially, and you [B]really[/B] can't put a dollar value on putting a bunch of lawyers out of work.
[QUOTE=Dickhead;442475]I dunno bro. Maybe. I grew up with heating oil. It could be that CO was using coal fired plants in the 70s and 80s. I did know it was still the largest single source. On (forced air) natural gas heating, it's not good for your skin and your sinuses (your hair too according to my lady friends, but I haven't actually noticed that) and if you don't clean the ducts regularly some people can get respiratory issues. That is probably more of an issue in the dry climates I've lived in than maybe where y'all are from. I'm not saying it's unsafe, just not as healthy as say radiant hot water heating. My favorite kind of heating is those tubes under the floor, similar to what they use for driveways in some places. Quieter too. I spent a summer in college putting those things in, hard fucking work too. I guess it might be the case with natural gas, in some locations, that the ultimate consumer might not know how the gas they are using is generated? Don't the utilities kinda buy that shit from wherever?[/QUOTE]I think it's a safe bet that you had coal fired power plants in CO in the 70s and 80s considering Colorado currently receives more than 70 percent of its electricity from coal-fired power plants, and plans are in place to build more.
[URL]http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/energy/coal/colorado.php[/URL]
[URL]http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Category:Existing_coal_plants_in_Colorado[/URL]
I grew up in a house that had an old fuel oil furnace and it was a horrible stinky system, when we converted to natural gas we thought it was a god sent. If you think gas heat is dry give wood heat a try. Keeping the duct work clean is a problem for any forced air system be it heat pump, wood, gas, electric or even in air conditioning systems. I also like radiant hot water heating it's a very nice warm heat as was the old radiator systems, but the water in those systems has to be heated and I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of them are heated with fossil fuels.
[QUOTE=Dickhead;442475]Let's shoot for a modest goal. I believe that in 20 years less than half the private cars will use fossil fuels and virtually none of the public transit. And the mileage of the remaining fossil fuel cars will be say 75 or 80 MPG. We can do that, right? I also think there is a lot of potential energy savings to be had in these apps where you can control your thermostat from your cell phone. Shit, I live in a three year old townhome and it doesn't even have a programmable thermostat (not that my friend who owns it would be able to figure out how to use one if we had one, but still). Seems like that should be a requirement for all new construction.[/QUOTE]Let me work this one backwards, if I was living in the home of a friend that didn't have a programmable thermostat I would install one for him especially if I was paying the heating bill. They are fairly easy to install and anyone who can figure out how operate one can probable figure out how to install it. I tend to agree with you about potential energy savings and if I was in a situation where it was feasible I would enjoy living off grid, but mainly because I like being independent.
The best I can say about your "modest goal" and I don't intend any malice here but Dude it's a pipe dream. I'm unaware of any available technology to get 75-80 mpg. What would you power all the other vehicles with, batteries perhaps? If so how would you charge all these batteries, with electricity from fossil fuel?
Since this is the political thread lets move back that way and let me ask you this. If the federal government is going to subsidize battery powered cars, (which I don't support) don't you think the owners of those cars should be required to charge their batteries with electric from renewable energy sources, or be required to pay penalty/tax if they charge from traditional sources? The penalty/tax would help offset the cost of the subsidy.
Sidebar: where I grew up you seldom heard anyone say "y'all" now if you went a little farther south say down around Al Gore country you'd hear it a lot from them ridgerunners. However we did get a few visitors from over in Obama land that liked to say "you'ins" as in "you'ins are some sumbitches, I tell ya." Most of those guys were redneck flatlanders but their politics was bluer than blue, I'm talkin yellow dog Democrats, and I heard a lot of 'em up and moved to Colorado that's why they was able to elect a Republican governor in Obama land this year.
Now back to Jonathan Gruber and ObamaCare, a subject that's not going away anytime soon.
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;442479]The people can have health care.[/QUOTE]The "[I]people[/I]" had health care before Obamacare.
[QUOTE=ElAlamoPalermo;442478]The "end" is that the USA finally offers affordable healthcare to all its citizens[/QUOTE]The USA offered "[I]affordable healthcare to all of its citizens[/I]" before Obamacare, all they had to do was buy it with [U]their[/U] [U]money[/U].
The only difference is now they can buy it with [U]my[/U] [U]money[/U].
Let's stop pretending that there was no health care in the USA before Obamacare.
Thanks,
Jax
[QUOTE=Punter127;442481]Let me work this one backwards, if I was living in the home of a friend that didn't have a programmable thermostat I would install one for him especially if I was paying the heating bill. They are fairly easy to install and anyone who can figure out how operate one can probable figure out how to install it.[/QUOTE]It's a her and she's been separated from hubby over two years now and she won't even change a burned out light bulb. I did, in fact, offer to install one if she wanted to buy one and the few tools that would be needed. She declined this, which may have been a slight on my mechanical skills, but I think mostly it's because she's not here. Not that this point of view makes any sense, since it's she and not I who's paying the heating (and AC too), but it's a woman so sense is not a factor.
[QUOTE=Punter127;442481]If the federal government is going to subsidize battery powered cars, (which I don't support) don't you think the owners of those cars should be required to charge their batteries with electric from renewable energy sources, or be required to pay penalty/tax if they charge from traditional sources? The penalty/tax would help offset the cost of the subsidy.[/QUOTE]Sure, if they can. But remember my proposal was not aimed at subsidizing any particular technology, just mpg in general. I don't really know how those charging stations function, although I'm sure you do. Is it mostly a marginal cost per car charged or is most of the cost in creating the capacity to begin with? The problem, as with many new technologies, is getting enough early adapters to achieve critical mass. Subsidies, while inherently evil, can sometimes help achieve that mass. Of course, then the subsidies have a nasty tendency to not go away once they're no longer needed. Kinda like the mortgage insurance deduction.
[QUOTE=Jackson;442482]The USA offered "[I]affordable healthcare to all of its citizens[/I]" before Obamacare[/QUOTE]I'm curious as to how you would go about defining "affordable." Percent of income? Percent of assets? Plus, your statement is pretty dubious considering that insurers routinely refused to cover those with pre-existing conditions, at [B]any[/B] price. I'd be interested in your response to that. Maybe you want to amend that to:
"The USA offered affordable care to all healthy and wealthy citizens before Obamacare.".
That would be orders of magnitude more accurate. But anyway, thanks for helping to pay for the free hearing aids I got yesterday. $10,600 of taxpayer money and they stopped working after three hours. That's gotta be Obama's fault somehow.
[QUOTE=ElAlamoPalermo;442478]The "means" were that the ACA was passed by majority vote in both chambers of the US Congress, signed into law by the sitting US President and later declared Constitutional by the SCOTUS. The "end" is that the USA finally offers affordable healthcare to all its citizens and becomes the last member of the civilized world to do so.[/QUOTE]The "means" were ObamaCare being shoved through the sludge of parliamentary trickery, lies, horse trading, cooked-up numbers and false promises. Signed into law by the sitting US President who also lied, and later part of it was declared Constitutional by the SCOTUS, however other parts are still being evaluated. There is no "end" unless the law is repealed or struck down by the SCOTUS .
It's just a law, it's not even a constitutional amendment and it's certainly not chiseled in stone.
[QUOTE=ElAlamoPalermo;442478]The "means" were that the ACA was passed by majority vote in both chambers of the US Congress, signed into law by the sitting US President and later declared Constitutional by the SCOTUS. The "end" is that the USA finally offers affordable healthcare to all its citizens and becomes the last member of the civilized world to do so.[/QUOTE]You statement regarding offering "affordable" healthcare to "all its citizens" is just another falsehood. It maybe affordable to those receiving subsidies but is it not so for all those paying higher premiums after being forced off their original plans which did not meet ACA standards. Second even the Democrats and Obama admitted there would still be something like 20 to 30 million citizens without coverage when all was said and done. The second shoe drops in 2015 when companies employing more than 100 employees fall under ACA.
EAP is just spouting rubbish.
While some aspects of the law will be recycled into another healthcare bill, ACA/ObamaCare will parish and may do so this summer after the Supremes hear the subsidies case. I predict Roberts will be on the other side of the fence on this one.
Tonight Obamation will seal the fate of the Democrats for 2016. Conservatives could ask for no greater weapon against the liberals than Obama.
[QUOTE=Dickhead;442475]
Let's shoot for a modest goal. I believe that in 20 years less than half the private cars will use fossil fuels and virtually none of the public transit. [/QUOTE]Lets back up a bit. What I was trying to ask you is how would the non fossil fuel cars and public transit be powered in your "modest goal"?
[QUOTE=Dickhead;442484](snip)
But anyway, thanks for helping to pay for the free hearing aids I got yesterday. $10,600 of taxpayer money and they stopped working after three hours. That's gotta be Obama's fault somehow.[/QUOTE]Actually, I would blame Obama if you got those hearing aids through ACA. Thems some expensive contraptions!
My father got hearing aids about a year ago, for around a 1/4 of the price. They work well - the biggest complaint he has is the battery lifetime. And he is far from rich...
"Making healthcare affordable" for everyone shouldn't mean putting crap on top of more crap so that the government can redistribute wealth. It should mean fixing the underlying problems so that we don't have to subsidize over-priced healthcare for those who truly can't afford it. If Obama had put his political capital into something like that (even if he'd failed!), I would have voted for him his second term.
[QUOTE=Punter127;442487]Lets back up a bit. What I was trying to ask you is how would the non fossil fuel cars and public transit be powered in your "modest goal"?[/QUOTE]The engineers and scientists are going to have to solve that one, or Elon Monk or some other genius. I don't have any type of science background at all. Remember, I'm a liberal arts major. I took meteorology as my science. I can tell you all about the lifting condensation level but how to power vehicles, not so much. That's why I have no opinion on fracking or global warming; those opinions would be based on nothing. But I think you thought from my previous post that I somehow thought radiant heat came by osmosis or something. I'm not claiming it saves money. I don't know that either. And sure, it's the presence of the ducts and not the natural gas that causes the respiratory problems, but the point was that other types of systems don't have ducts at all.
[QUOTE=ElQueso;442488]Actually, I would blame Obama if you got those hearing aids through ACA. Thems some expensive contraptions!
My father got hearing aids about a year ago, for around a 1/4 of the price. They work well - the biggest complaint he has is the battery lifetime. And he is far from rich...
"Making healthcare affordable" for everyone shouldn't mean putting crap on top of more crap so that the government can redistribute wealth. It should mean fixing the underlying problems so that we don't have to subsidize over-priced healthcare for those who truly can't afford it. If Obama had put his political capital into something like that (even if he'd failed!), I would have voted for him his second term.[/QUOTE]That was the MSRP. I'll have to see what the insurance company actually pays the audiologist. Last time it was $5,400 but these are a newer technology. Notice I didn't say a better technology, although for the brief three hours they functioned ($3,533 an hour for those keeping track at home) they did seem considerably better. They do have a 3 year warranty versus 2 years for the older ones.
I thought it was kind of wasteful in the first place since the old hearing aids still work, but they are out of warranty so there was my incentive, plus I'm leaving. As much as they conk out, I think it's probably reasonable to have a second pair, but why the fuck do they conk out so much if they are supposed to be the latest and greatest? That would be my question.
I don't know if this means anything, but both the audiologists I have been to were super cute and had major hotties working at the front desk. This one is from Australia by way of Arkansas and you can just imagine how cute her accent is.
Why do so many Americans that I meet have partial hearing problems? The slanting of the neck for better ear positioning is a regular feature these days. Can we coin that as the giraffe pose?
But then it could be my whispering.
My 31 yo grand-nephew from the States who I am trying to rehabilitate into a useful citizen already has hearing problems. I have to ask him to tone down in public because he can't hear himself. Nothing like shouting about all the drugs he ate or the women who got naked on him while riding the subway in Bangkok. Fortunately, 90% of them don't understand English and the 7% don't get it because of the speed & slang of the conversation. Meanwhile, I just try to look casual as if we are talking about where the best pad-thai are.
[QUOTE=ElAlamoPalermo;442478] The "end" is that the USA finally offers affordable healthcare to all its citizens and becomes the last member of the civilized world to do so.[/QUOTE]Do you really believe this? Is this what the pundits on MSNBC are spouting?
The USA does not offer affordable healthcare. Healthcare costs in the USA as a % of GDP, at 17.9%, are higher than anywhere else in the world. And they're projected by the United States government to rise to 19.9% of GDP in 2022. Take out Sierra Leone, Liberia, Tuvalu and U.S. territories and costs are at least 50% higher in the United States than any other country in the world.
As to your apparent belief that ALL citizens will have health insurance, that's not true. There were 48 million uninsured in 2011. After Obamacare takes full effect, in 2016, the CBO expects the number to go down to 30 million and remain flat. So after all this, there will still be 30 million people outside the system.
I can't understand how you guys can not only defend the ACA, but also believe it was a great accomplishment.
Here are my sources if you care to review the truth instead of living in a dreamworld:
[URL]http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS[/URL]
[URL]http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/proj2012.pdf[/URL]
[URL]http://kff.org/health-reform/fact-sheet/the-uninsured-and-the-difference-health-insurance/[/URL]
[URL]http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43900-2014-04-ACAtables2.pdf[/URL]
[QUOTE=Dickhead;442471]My community can decide it does not want massage parlors or e-cigarettes or angle parking or buildings over X feet high or almost anything else. So why can't they ban fracking if that's the community's desire? The one thing I came up with is that zoning changes often grandfather in existing uses, for the reasons Tiny mentions, but apparently we can't even ban it for newly purchased land. So, to me, it just looks like special treatment for the energy industry.[/QUOTE]I do not believe your community should outlaw massage parlors, e-cigarettes, angle parking, tall buildings, fracking or marijuana. Maybe your community should place restrictions on new oil and gas wells, which is a very different issue from fracking, as I've already explained. I will leave it at that, as I'm as dogmatic about fracking as you are about corporate taxation.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;442494]I do not believe your community should outlaw massage parlors, e-cigarettes, angle parking, tall buildings, fracking or marijuana. Maybe your community should place restrictions on new oil and gas wells, which is a very different issue from fracking, as I've already explained. I will leave it at that, as I'm as dogmatic about fracking as you are about corporate taxation.[/QUOTE]My fucking soon-to-be-ex community did in fact outlaw marijuana despite the fact that 54% of the voters in our town voted for the amendment that legalized it. So, this week the adjoining school district was presented with $905,000 in marijuana tax money and we got nothing. Now I have to consume additional fossil fuels to drive to the next town. But at least it's a hybrid.
[URL]http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/11/21/house-panel-debunks-benghazi-theories/19367265/[/URL]
Obama bashers are like hounds in a fox chase. Frenzied, yelping, they are always in heat when they have the tiniest of a drift of an Obama scandal. Under the pretensions of patriotism & truth, their outrage of Obama verge on the ridiculous more often than not. At the end of the day, the catch was never worth the chase. But to their grave, they will bring their conviction that Obama was nothing but a fraud, even a traitor. Nail him to the cross! How can a son of a carpenter or a Kenyan immigrant perform miracles? "A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household."(Matthew 13.57).
I know some of you will puke at any Biblical references, but in reality, you can really understand & differentiate goodness & evil very well there. Something not always very clear in secular society.
[QUOTE=Jackson;442482]The "[I]people[/I]" had health care before Obamacare.
The USA offered "[I]affordable healthcare to all of its citizens[/I]" before Obamacare, all they had to do was buy it with [U]their[/U] [U]money[/U].
The only difference is now they can buy it with [U]my[/U] [U]money[/U].
Let's stop pretending that there was no health care in the USA before Obamacare.
Thanks,
Jax[/QUOTE]I know FIRST HAND that a HUGE number (in the millions-perhaps tens of millions) of the population did not and COULD not get medical insurance even if they were willing to pay a million dollars a year. What stupid ignorance to reality!!
However, even if you finally had to admit (which you would never do regardless of the evidence) that millions did not and COULD not get insurance it wouldn't matter one ounce to you-callousness is a Republican prerequisite.
Try living in reality (and the US) for a while and perhaps you will see reality-on second thought that will be an impossibility.
Stowe.
[QUOTE=Stowe;442512]I know FIRST HAND that a HUGE number (in the millions-perhaps tens of millions) of the population did not and COULD not get medical insurance even if they were willing to pay a million dollars a year. What stupid ignorance to reality!!
However, even if you finally had to admit (which you would never do regardless of the evidence) that millions did not and COULD not get insurance it wouldn't matter one ounce to you-callousness is a Republican prerequisite.
Try living in reality (and the US) for a while and perhaps you will see reality-on second thought that will be an impossibility.
Stowe.[/QUOTE]Obamacare will leave 30 million people uninsured and thus out of the health care system. Jackson has proposed a system that would provide health care for all, as an alternative to what we have now. See [URL]http://www.argentinaprivate.com/forum/showthread.php?5285-American-Politics-during-the-Obama-Presidency&p=435065&highlight=argentina[/URL]#post435065. (Stowe, you'll have to scroll down the page to read what he wrote -- I can't get the link to work correctly.) When the bottom fell out of the Argentine economy, he contributed money and time to help people who were truly poverty stricken.
I could say that the problem with Democrats is that they all want to sit at home watching television collecting their government checks while the rest of us bust our asses to support them. And not only that, but if someone were to propose something related to healthcare or education that would lower costs and improve quality, it would be over their dead bodies. That's because Democrats are never happy unless they're flushing somebody else's money down the toilet. I don't really believe that, but it makes more sense that what some of what you guys have been spouting here about the "callous" types that disagree with you.
Hmm. I followed that link and I saw where Jackson briefly discussed a system and then stated it wouldn't work because the liberals would bankrupt it. Maybe you could extract the relevant part of the post to which you refer.
Jackson also said this: "Regarding pre-existing conditions, I'm all for eliminating pre-existing conditions as a barrier to buying health insurance if anyone can figure out a way to deal with the inevitable issue of people waiting until they have a health issue before they decide to buy health insurance."
The penalties for not having insurance address this, and increase fairly dramatically. So it's at least a partial solution. Now, the mentality of not buying health insurance until you are sick is one of those things I was saying may take a long time to change. But I think it will, over time, because the subsidized insurance is a good deal and most people will figure that out and will have it. Gradually the mindset will change to where health insurance is taken for granted (pluses and minuses to that as well), and playing the waiting game will no longer be necessary or desirable. Lots of people didn't buy car insurance when they didn't have to, remember? I was one of them. But, now it's well ingrained in almost every state (I think NH still does not require auto insurance), and it's gotten more ingrained. When they first made it mandatory in this state, you could still register your car without it (like you were promising not to actually drive it) and now you can't. The ACA will turn out much the same way, gradual acceptance until it becomes socially institutionalized.
But then again, maybe the Republicans will dismantle the whole thing in 2017. I guess I'd better manipulate the piss out of it for the next few years. Oh, wait minute; I was already doing that. Never mind.
[QUOTE=Dickhead;442516] Maybe you could extract the relevant part of the post to which you refer.[/QUOTE]Here it is:
[QUOTE=Jackson;435065]As a compromise to those who wish to buy votes, I stated that I would support a tax funded system of free public hospitals in the USA. Of course, I'm envisioning concrete block facilities staffed with doctors and nurses trained at tuition-free government medical schools and working for military payscales.[/QUOTE]
A somewhat similar system in Hong Kong, which operates aside private healthcare, provides good quality care at much, much lower cost than the system in the USA.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;442517]Here it is: A somewhat similar system in Hong Kong, which operates aside private healthcare, provides good quality care at much, much lower cost than the system in the USA.[/QUOTE]Right, and then he says, "such a system would never work in the USA." So that's pretty typical conservative rhetoric: complaining about something but not offering any solutions. And, if the system he alludes to is so great, why have no Republican presidents made any moves towards implementing such a system? You guys can complain about the ACA all you want, and it's sure not perfect. But it's a case of a [B]politician actually getting something done[/B], and for that by itself should be applauded.
But fair is fair and now that the ACA is paying for my hearing aids, I'll pay for your crying towels. Do you want the money sent to Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, or one of the other groups that does your thinking for you? What do you think, a gross of crying towels? Will that be enough? Or should I make it a great gross?
[QUOTE=Dickhead;442518]Right, and then he says, "such a system would never work in the USA." So that's pretty typical conservative rhetoric: complaining about something but not offering any solutions. And, if the system he alludes to is so great, why have no Republican presidents made any moves towards implementing such a system? You guys can complain about the ACA all you want, and it's sure not perfect. But it's a case of a [B]politician actually getting something done[/B], and for that by itself should be applauded.
But fair is fair and now that the ACA is paying for my hearing aids, I'll pay for your crying towels. Do you want the money sent to Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, or one of the other groups that does your thinking for you? What do you think, a gross of crying towels? Will that be enough? Or should I make it a great gross?[/QUOTE]I'm not a Republican. I do on the whole dislike Democrat politicians more than Republican politicians though.
I would actually favor a system like Singapore's that keeps health care private but encourages competition, eliminates crony capitalism, and makes sure all individuals are covered. And all at lower cost to the consumer and the taxpayer than what the USA has now. My second choice would be a system like Hong Kong's, which involves public health care. No mainstream Republican or Democrat would support either of these solutions. I may be to the left of you on this issue, although you do appear to have no appreciation for the fact that the health care system without changes will probably bankrupt America, which is typical of the left. I have to admit that spending lots of money so a country or state or locality eventually goes bankrupt is indeed getting something done.
It isn't that I have no appreciation for the effect of the changes, it's that I don't agree with you on the ultimate outcome. It's not that easy to bankrupt an entity that has the right of seigniorage. And in my state, we're ending the first year of the ACA with large surpluses and an unemployment rate below 4%. Inflation was negative last month. None of the economic woes the gloom and doomers predicted are surfacing (yet). Enrollment is increasing nicely in the first year of renewal, by the early numbers. That means more economies of scale and more efficiencies, oops I mean relatively less [B]in[/B]efficiency, for the new and growing system. Despite my own considerable trials and travails with the bureaucratic aspects of the system, I'm moderately sanguine about it going forward.
I think the Hong Kong system, which Tiny's posts have led me to study, would be a fine theoretical model for us to draw on. If you look at health care costs in the US, I think you need to look first at the excessive compensation structure. If you look at the industrialized countries who spend far lower percentages of GDP per capita compared to the US, in none of those places are doctors making the type of money they do in the US. Work on that and work on getting the pharmaceuticals out the drug [B]pushing[/B] business and back into the drug [B]providing[/B] business, and then maybe a dual public-private system a la Hong Kong could function in the US. Singapore I did not study because Islam makes me puke. I've been to Hong Kong, and clearly there is still an economic stratum that is excluded from affordable health care. It's probably not nearly as large as the percentage here, though. I base that on the large number of amputees, harelips, and so forth that I saw there, stuff that was probably correctable at some point.
Hong Kong is a model of efficiency and other countries would do well to study not just its health care system but its transportation system and probably a few other systems as well. Their system of prostitution is not bad either, and is for the most part a tribute to the effectiveness of free and unfettered markets. HK has the best looking independent streetwalkers of anywhere I've ever been, and that's saying something.
Here is one inherent problem with free markets and unfettered capitalism that nobody really likes to talk about: It's based on the premise that all people are created equal. But, they're not. So the ones who are born with and into "more equal" circumstances crush those who are born with lesser abilities and economic advantages. The intergenerational effect from this is exponential and not linear, and an overly stratified society results. A way to address that is (conservatives cover your eyes and ears and go hide in a closet) [B]wealth redistribution[/B]. A reasonably efficient way of achieving wealth distribution is progressive taxation. Stripped to its fiscal core, the ACA is nothing more than an example of graduated income tax rates. So, even if I were to ignore the huge and largely unjustified benefits I'm personally receiving from it, it has a lot of conceptual appeal. I believe the true measure of any society is how it treats its weakest members. The US leaves a lot to be desired in that regard, in my opinion, and the ACA is a large step in the right direction.
Wouldn't my side of things have gotten more votes this past election if the mulatto Muslim messiah had announced his illegal, subversive, and unconstitutional immigration plan [B]before[/B] the mid-terms? What am I missing here?
We need merit-based immigration and not this whatever jackass evaded capture the longest gets to stay bullshit.
[QUOTE=Dickhead;442520] It's not that easy to bankrupt an entity that has the right of seigniorage.[/QUOTE]If we just print more money, won't we end up like Argentina and Brazil in the 1980's, or Zimbabwe more recently?
[QUOTE=Dickhead;442520]And in my state, we're ending the first year of the ACA with large surpluses and an unemployment rate below 4%. Inflation was negative last month. None of the economic woes the gloom and doomers predicted are surfacing (yet). Enrollment is increasing nicely in the first year of renewal, by the early numbers. That means more economies of scale and more efficiencies, oops I mean relatively less [B]in[/B]efficiency, for the new and growing system. Despite my own considerable trials and travails with the bureaucratic aspects of the system, I'm moderately sanguine about it going forward.[/QUOTE]If you're addressing my point about health care costs bankrupting the USA, this is irrelevant. The gloom and doomers are mainstream. Unfunded liabilities of the federal government are huge, over 200 trillion dollars by some estimates, and I believe Medicare and Medicaid account for the majority of that. Obamacare will soon be adding another $150 billion a year on top of Medicare and Medicaid. The irony is that some countries spend less as a % of GDP for healthcare for their entire populations than what we spend on Medicare and Medicaid alone. And they have better outcomes for things like life expectancy and infant mortality. The system is royally fucked and if nothing changes we will go bankrupt. Yes, that will occur after you die, so you can afford to be moderately sanguine.
[QUOTE=Dickhead;442520]Here is one inherent problem with free markets and unfettered capitalism that nobody really likes to talk about: It's based on the premise that all people are created equal. But, they're not. So the ones who are born with and into "more equal" circumstances crush those who are born with lesser abilities and economic advantages. The intergenerational effect from this is exponential and not linear, and an overly stratified society results. A way to address that is (conservatives cover your eyes and ears and go hide in a closet) [B]wealth redistribution[/B]. A reasonably efficient way of achieving wealth distribution is progressive taxation. Stripped to its fiscal core, the ACA is nothing more than an example of graduated income tax rates. So, even if I were to ignore the huge and largely unjustified benefits I'm personally receiving from it, it has a lot of conceptual appeal. I believe the true measure of any society is how it treats its weakest members. The US leaves a lot to be desired in that regard, in my opinion, and the ACA is a large step in the right direction.[/QUOTE]First, everything you've read about inequality probably looked at before tax income. If you adjust for taxes, transfer payments, household size, retirement benefits and the like, the relative changes that have occurred in recent decades aren't that drastic. See Table 1 in [URL]http://journal.southerneconomic.org/doi/pdf/10.4284/0038-4038-2013.175.[/URL] I looked at progressivity some time ago, and if memory serves me correctly, the USA had the most progressive tax system in the developed world. I'm sure that's right for OECD countries. And that was BEFORE OBAMACARE AND BEFORE THE BUSH TAX CUTS WERE RESCINDED. You tax people at up to a 43.4% federal tax rate (39.6% before Obamacare), and add up to a 13.3% state rate, then add on property taxes and take away 40% of what they've got after they die and you end up with a pretty progressive system. Some might argue if that's conceptually appealing, then confiscation and theft should be conceptually appealing too. I might not go that far.
I would argue that the best cure for inequality is a better educational system. And spending isn't the problem. Our expenditures on education are comparable or higher than most other developed countries. The problem is with the system. I see some Republicans trying to fix it, with things like vouchers and accountablilty from educators. And some Democrats fighting them every step of the way. Also, more needs to be done about helping children in poverty, instead of heavily subsidizing Medicare and Social Security for older Americans, who are relatively well off compared to younger Americans.
Maybe you should watch this program.
Jackson one of the most.
[URL]http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/the-roosevelts/[/URL]
All the republicans hated the Democrats then, because he and his wife want freedom and health care fore ALL.
Same as Now.
He had to deal with the same racial problems that the Good Old White Boys did then and still do not want!
[QUOTE=Dickhead;442520] Singapore I did not study because Islam makes me puke.[/QUOTE]You might be thinking of Brunei? The rich oil mini state?
I said Singapore and I meant Singapore. I know that Buddhism is a bit more prevalent than Islam in Singapore but it's a good 1/4 or 1/3 Muslim and I choose to avoid it, similar to the south of Thailand. One thing nobody wants to talk about is the birth rate among Muslims. It's so much higher than Buddhists' rate that Islam will probably be the majority religion there in one or two more generations. Could happen in Thailand too.
"If we just print more money, won't we end up like Argentina and Brazil in the 1980's, or Zimbabwe more recently?".
The key difference is that in those other countries, the printing press is in the hands of the legislative branch. Not the case in the Yew Ess. The other difference is that the Yew Ess has a lot more success in collecting the taxes it imposes.
If you want better schools, for my money the way to achieve it is to make everyone attend the same school. Rich, poor, black, white, etc. No private schools. No parochial schools. No home schooling. I definitely agree it's not about money. I spent fifteen years in higher education watching the quality of incoming freshmen get worse and worse as more and more of this No Child Left Behind and outcomes based learning and crap proliferated. Eliminate athletic scholarships; that would be a start.
[QUOTE=Dickhead;442541]"If we just print more money, won't we end up like Argentina and Brazil in the 1980's, or Zimbabwe more recently?".
The key difference is that in those other countries, the printing press is in the hands of the legislative branch. Not the case in the Yew Ess. The other difference is that the Yew Ess has a lot more success in collecting the taxes it imposes.[/QUOTE]Thanks for that, honestly, I didn't think about the taxes part. So a highly indebted USA will be more like Japan, a poor economy for decades? I'm not sure that's any better. And I'm not sure that's a good analogy, as while the Japanese hold most Japanese government debt, much of ours is owned by Chinese, Saudi Arabia, etc.
[QUOTE=Dickhead;442541]f you want better schools, for my money the way to achieve it is to make everyone attend the same school. Rich, poor, black, white, etc. No private schools. No parochial schools. No home schooling. [/QUOTE]
You read about schools that far outperform others, and also health care systems like Mayo's that produce great results at far lower cost than the average. If you could get rid of the crony capitalism, teacher's unions, etc. and encourage something like a free market in education and health care, I wonder if these could predominate. You would need to insure that underprivileged kids could attend the best schools, chosen by their parents. I doubt we'd see eye-to-eye on that, as you seem to prefer statist solutions controlled by elites in the federal government, while I think that's a recipe for disaster. I could however see implementing Jackson's alternative to the present system, because health care is so truly screwed up.
[QUOTE=Dickhead;442540]I said Singapore and I meant Singapore. I know that Buddhism is a bit more prevalent than Islam in Singapore but it's a good 1/4 or 1/3 Muslim and I choose to avoid it, similar to the south of Thailand. One thing nobody wants to talk about is the birth rate among Muslims. It's so much higher than Buddhists' rate that Islam will probably be the majority religion there in one or two more generations. Could happen in Thailand too.[/QUOTE]I just looked it up and 13% of the population is Malay (Islamic) and 9% is Indian. Most of the Indians are probably Hindi. That said, the only place I've ever felt threatened by a Muslim was in Singapore, so much so that when asked my nationality I pretended like I was from Argentina. I've spent months in Indonesia and never felt threatened or unwelcome. That's compared to about 10 days total in Singapore.