Brainfade Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 Unions made concessions , that's a fact. Car prices weren't significantly increased until the tsunami hit Japan. Fuel efficiency standards along with increased domestic drilling (prev admin gets good credit) will go a long way in reducing the import bill unlike the unsustainable appetite for gas guzzlers overlooked by the previous administration. The auto industry is back to making profits, sometimes beating expectations. The govt's percentage ownership is lesser as well. How is all this terrible ? Even Romney claims credit for the auto rescue for whatever reason. We're obviously not reading the same things, are we :-)? http://reason.com/archives/2011/05/24/general-motors-will-never-repa As for more fuel efficient cars ... again, I am not opposed to fuel efficiency. I am opposed to the government mandating mileage restrictions. What's next? Buy a Volt or pay a $1000 tax? It is "deemed" good for society, the govt thinks it is good for you, and so it should be OK? The inexorable movement to favor the collective over the individual is now irreversible.
Desi Cartman Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 Not "bimbo." He called her a "C * N T" and "T W A T." He can say it all he wants on HBO. Just as Rush Limbaugh could lambast the G'town girl by calling her a sl*t. It is called free speech. But' date=' based on the reactions, it seems like free speech is a one-way street.[/quote'] So are they both right or both wrong ? IMO one was name calling to insult and other was character assassination of a non public figure and women in general. I personally don't have issues with either but he basically characterized all women who take pills as *****s.
Lurker Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 Oh, they've always been idiots. You just decided to recognize it today. Regardless of your political inclinations, you must agree that Bill Maher lost all credibility when he called Sarah Palin a ***** (that he was not vilified for it unlike Rush who was vilified for his rant against the G'town student is a whole another issue), and even before that when he suggested that GWB had caused 9/11 for political gain. Idiot. Now thats plain wrong CA. Bill Maher != Rush Limbaugh and you know it. Thats a false equivalency. Has Bill Maher said outrageous comment? Sure. But is he in the same brainwashing mode as Rush, come on you know better than that. Matter of fact, for a true conservative like you, you should be on Bill Maher's side when it comes to chastising Sarah Palin. Has there been a worse leader for Republicans? I personally dont think so, what do you say?
Clarke Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 We're obviously not reading the same things, are we :-)? http://reason.com/archives/2011/05/24/general-motors-will-never-repa As for more fuel efficient cars ... again, I am not opposed to fuel efficiency. I am opposed to the government mandating mileage restrictions. What's next? Buy a Volt or pay a $1000 tax? It is "deemed" good for society, the govt thinks it is good for you, and so it should be OK? The inexorable movement to favor the collective over the individual is now irreversible. Tell me about it @ news sources :D Yes of course, there was/is a cost to the bailout, it will depend on what the price of the GM stock when the complete sale happens. The debate has been the cost of not going forward with the bailout, financial and otherwise. The cost of Chrysler's survival was no doubt a bargain @ 1.3 billion. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/06/how-much-did-the-auto-bailout-cost-taxpayers/ As for the govt mandates, its a never ending discussion. There's always some aspects (e.g. military) which the country pays for collectively and there's others for which the left and right shall go on & on. If you're not for mandated mileage standards, would you at least support some sort of carbon/fuel tax to pay for infrastructure & reduce the deficit ? Something that David Frum for instance supports ? We can then consider funding R&D for alternative & renewable energy (wink wink, Solyndra!).
Desi Cartman Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 Heard republicans on the radio say that its a 4:4:1 decision, what does that mean ? Am I not understanding something here
Nova Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 Quite pleased that the Supreme court passed Obama's health care law. :two_thumbs_up: But what will happen if the Republicans come in power.. can they reverse it? :nervous:
The Outsider Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 Didnt do anything of note against the biggest culprits - Stock markets and haramkhors at Wall Street. Auto bailout was not a bad idea really. Lekin Wall Street waalon ko bamboo dena maangta tha. :(( Regarding the Health Care Bill, I've tried reading it's summaries, opinions etc. on many occasions but still don't have a complete understanding of the economics behind it. Some of the numbers seem to have been pulled out of thin air. I know that my premium has gone up by around 15-20% over the last year or so - why wasn't some kind of safeguard put in place in the Bill to prevent this kind of crazy hikes over already high premiums? Where is the end to this? Can insurance companies keep increasing premiums for people who have done the responsible thing by opting for insurance for years and years and utilizing the services only when needed to serve people who are irresponsible? I would still support Obama over Romney, but overall his term would get a rating of no more than 6/10 from me mainly due to his foreign policies. IMO, he has been a failure on the domestic front.
punjabi_khota Posted June 29, 2012 Author Posted June 29, 2012 :(( I know that my premium has gone up by around 15-20% over the last year or so - why wasn't some kind of safeguard put in place in the Bill to prevent this kind of crazy hikes over already high premiums? Where is the end to this? Can insurance companies keep increasing premiums for people who have done the responsible thing by opting for insurance for years and years and utilizing the services only when needed to serve people who are irresponsible? The 'expensive' parts of Obamacare haven't even gone into effect yet, so it wouldn't be correct to attribute premium rises to the inclusion of 'irresponsible' people in the insurance pool. It could be a pre-emptive move from insurance companies though. :hmmmm2: Only example of including the 'irresponsible' (harsh term) we have is Romneycare, and premiums have not increased appreciably more than other states.
The Outsider Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 The 'expensive' parts of Obamacare haven't even gone into effect yet, so it wouldn't be correct to attribute premium rises to the inclusion of 'irresponsible' people in the insurance pool. It could be a pre-emptive move from insurance companies though. :hmmmm2: Only example of including the 'irresponsible' (harsh term) we have is Romneycare, and premiums have not increased appreciably more than other states. Which makes it worse that insurance companies are increasing their rates "preemptively" and there is no government safeguard surrounding it. And I know for sure, it's just not me, many more friends I know have seen a drastic jump in their premiums over the past year. By irresponsible I don't mean those people who genuinely can't afford health insurance, but for example, people who would rush into the emergency facilities just to make things happen faster.
Ram Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 This election was over the day Seal Team Six gave Obama the biggest campaign contribution he could have hoped for.
vvvslaxman Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 :(( Regarding the Health Care Bill, I've tried reading it's summaries, opinions etc. on many occasions but still don't have a complete understanding of the economics behind it. Some of the numbers seem to have been pulled out of thin air. I know that my premium has gone up by around 15-20% over the last year or so - why wasn't some kind of safeguard put in place in the Bill to prevent this kind of crazy hikes over already high premiums? Where is the end to this? Can insurance companies keep increasing premiums for people who have done the responsible thing by opting for insurance for years and years and utilizing the services only when needed to serve people who are irresponsible? I would still support Obama over Romney, but overall his term would get a rating of no more than 6/10 from me mainly due to his foreign policies. IMO, he has been a failure on the domestic front. I suffered last 10 years.
yoda Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 I am not sure if this bill addresses any of these, but they are important IMO to fix: 1. Tying medical insurance to jobs - When you leave a job, you get new insurance which may not give you same coverage, etc. When you lose a job, you take Cobra which can cost as much as $1.5k/month for a family. 2. Crazy cost of care, especially Emergency. If you go to Emergency and they perform basic defensive procedures, but no treatment, the actual bill can be in the 5k-10k range for less than an hour or two there. 3. Administrative overhead - If you go to the local hospital, like the one here in Mountain View, CA, you will find an admin in pretty much every small section of the hospital, with typically 0-2 patients waiting to be served by each. I mean, they can have electronic checkin booths and pretty much eliminate all these jobs or at a minimum reduce these to 1/10th of what they have now. The only useful thing coming out of this bill I believe is the pre-existing condition thingy. Otherwise, seems like business as usual.
triam Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 CA, I like most of your conservative views, but comparing Sarah Palin with a GW student is crazy dont you think. Regardless of Bill Maher being right or wrong on calling her ****, Palin is a political figure and has avenues to give back as good as she gets, by the by(c**t is derogatory where as s**T is impugning someones character). The GW student has no means to get back at Rush and he is a national figure who can shape peoples opinion.
Lurker Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 CA, I like most of your conservative views, but comparing Sarah Palin with a GW student is crazy dont you think. Regardless of Bill Maher being right or wrong on calling her ****, Palin is a political figure and has avenues to give back as good as she gets, by the by(c**t is derogatory where as s**T is impugning someones character). The GW student has no means to get back at Rush and he is a national figure who can shape peoples opinion. lol..I like that, going to be using too :--D
Desi Cartman Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 CA, I like most of your conservative views, but comparing Sarah Palin with a GW student is crazy dont you think. Regardless of Bill Maher being right or wrong on calling her ****, Palin is a political figure and has avenues to give back as good as she gets, by the by(c**t is derogatory where as s**T is impugning someones character). The GW student has no means to get back at Rush and he is a national figure who can shape peoples opinion. No the problem is that Rush's comment meant that all women who use pills are *****s. I try to understand the conservative BS but then they come out with gems like "no abortion even if pregnancy is due to rape", "no birth control pills even if they are for treatment of an illness" these statements make me go WTF
Desi Cartman Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 They are already calling this Obama tax :hehe: And the verdict 4:4:1, what does that even mean lol
triam Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 ok getting back to the health care act, tort reform and administrative cost cutting still needs to be done to really revamp the health care industry. The big winners are people with pre existing conditions and people below or close to the poverty line who are either unemployed and/or cant afford to pay health insurance premiums. Anyway you look at that it should be considered a victory.
Brainfade Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 No the problem is that Rush's comment meant that all women who use pills are *****s. I try to understand the conservative BS but then they come out with gems like "no abortion even if pregnancy is due to rape", "no birth control pills even if they are for treatment of an illness" these statements make me go WTF When your initial approach to understand is "this is BS," you're really not trying. There are extreme conservatives whose opinion you need to tune out. But, what about mainstream conservatives who would allow for abortions only in the case of rape or incest? Is it the mainstream liberal view that one must support partial-birth abortions (where a 7 or 8 month old fetus can be extracted and terminated) even when there is no physical health consequences to the mother? What about support for gender-specific abortions when the mother's choice is that she does not want a "girl" child? Is that an extremist view, but you would still support it because you don't think it is "BS"? Second, Rush was absolutely wrong in calling the woman a S L U T. Just as Bill Maher was absolutely wrong in calling Sarah Palin what he did - regardless of how stupid or unfit she was to be a VP. I am looking for consistent humanism here; y'all can't have it both ways. Now, let's look at the contraceptive issue with a "thande dimag". You see ... the problem is not with someone taking contraceptives. The problem is the government's expectation that any health plan offered by a private organization must cover their use - even if they are for birth control alone.
Brainfade Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 CA, I like most of your conservative views, but comparing Sarah Palin with a GW student is crazy dont you think. Regardless of Bill Maher being right or wrong on calling her ****, Palin is a political figure and has avenues to give back as good as she gets, by the by(c**t is derogatory where as s**T is impugning someones character). The GW student has no means to get back at Rush and he is a national figure who can shape peoples opinion. On my moral compass, they were both wrong. Even given that Sarah Palin was a public figure, she did not deserve to be called that.
Recommended Posts