- This topic has 706 replies, 41 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 1 month ago by
scaredyclassic.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 21, 2016 at 2:50 PM #796005March 21, 2016 at 3:01 PM #796007
an
Participant[quote=livinincali]The issue with measuring extremism is it’s relative to your own personal beliefs. If you’re pretty far left you won’t view any left leaning policies as extreme. In addition you will find more conservative policies to be extreme in contrast to your own views.
Take for example a wedding photographer that finds two men kissing offensive or something worse. In some people’s minds it’s perfectly fine for a gay couple to force that photographer to photograph that wedding under threat of discrimination lawsuit. It would be pretty extreme if I could force that photographer to take nude pics of a fat ugly chick. The photographer might find both things equally offensive but in one case we can probably agree that it would be pretty extreme and in the other we might not. It’s all relative to your own point of view.
If somebody suggested that all private property held as rentals should be taken over by the government so they could set the prices at affordable levels some of you might not view that as being extreme. The reality of such a proposal would be a significant step to outright communism, which most people would find extreme.[/quote]+1
You said it much better than I. I totally agree. Where you stand depends on where you sit.March 21, 2016 at 4:02 PM #796008flyer
ParticipantI realize others have stated they disagree, but, personally, I see bs and chaos on both sides. The few times I’ve tuned in to listen to either party speak, I’ve heard raving, ranting and promises made that only a fool would believe could actually be accomplished in reality–given the involvement of the three branches of government–vs. a monarchy–which the candidates appear to believe exists in the US.
Pandering to the masses has become an art form in this election beyond anything I’ve ever seen in my lifetime, and those who are being duped into voting for, what will most likely be proven to be empty promises, will become the victims of their own ignorance. That said, everyone is certainly free to believe whatever they want to believe.
March 21, 2016 at 5:35 PM #796009zk
Participant[quote=flyer]I realize others have stated they disagree, but, personally, I see bs and chaos on both sides. The few times I’ve tuned in to listen to either party speak, I’ve heard raving, ranting and promises made that only a fool would believe could actually be accomplished in reality–given the involvement of the three branches of government–vs. a monarchy–which the candidates appear to believe exists in the US.
[/quote]
Yeah, but, “raving, ranting and promises made that only a fool would believe could actually be accomplished in reality” is not chaos. That’s standard operating procedure and it has been for centuries.
Having two “outsiders” be the leaders in the race for the nomination, having one of them be a lunatic, having that lunatic endorse violence by his supporters against protesters, having the establishment trying frantically to stop the lunatic with the large lead from being the nominee, having that effort include basically calling their leading candidate a dangerous lunatic, and settling on supporting, only out of desperation, a candidate they largely despise, but who isn’t as bad as the leading candidate in their eyes… that’s a lot closer to chaos.
March 21, 2016 at 6:35 PM #796013joec
Participant[quote=flu]
I’m curious. Who uses more welfare benefits, like free hospital care…. Illegal aliens or people who live in the south who are U.S. citizens? I have my hunches, but anyone have a convenient fact table? Sorry, unless one’s paying his/her fair share of taxes and not milking some public benefit, he/she really shouldn’t be complaining.
I think in this country, we just have a competition from people who feel like they shouldn’t pay for something…And when there are other people of different kindsd encroaching on their free ride, they complain.
I believe in absolutes. If you want to talk about removing welfare for everybody, ok that makes more sense than targeting select groups on who to help.
As someone eloquently put it, I’m sure we’re paying for someone’s welfare in Mississippi[/quote]
There is no doubt there are more us citizens getting welfare than illegals. The difference is when should we, as a country start giving free college, free medical care, free everything to illegals over someone who is legitimately here. Maybe I just see the people here as the uncle dave that everyone knows is a loser, but at least he’s our uncle dave and we’re sorta stuck with him. The illegals are a new thing and promoting instant citizenship, free school, medical care, etc…costs money which we all are paying for.
I suppose I disagree with you because, say if you were a veteran or someone who grew up here, working, paying ss, medicare, etc…are a citizen…I think it’s probably a social need for everyone to get basic healthcare. Like I have said, until we start deciding to just let people die in the streets, healthcare is a pretty basic need. No one is going to get rich from getting basic medical care.
That said, there are plenty of reports of veterans having a hard time finding work, homeless, no healthcare, etc…willing to rob banks to get locked up so he can afford meds, etc…
As the pie and services aren’t infinite, supporting people who shouldn’t have a general right to get these services puts a strain on all our resources so you have to make a judgement call as to what type of services you offer.
Your view and attitude just seems like someone who is a bit tone deaf like a lot of silicon valley types I see on TV or a lot of types seem to comment on now.
Yes, you’ve worked very hard and deserve all your work and financial success, but me having worked hard in the past as well and also having worked in “regular” jobs (not tech) making far far less money, it’s really different when you are working in other industries or careers.
Again, it’s not your fault and I’m not saying I’m all knowing, but your comments just comes off to me as someone who feels people born poor or down on their luck and can’t ahead is just their problem and they are no better than people here illegally.
It’s just I think I honestly used to think exactly like you, but having experienced what I have now (again, through my own choices so I don’t blame anyone), I have a bit more sympathy and understanding for why the Trump supporters and people think that they do.
Again, I don’t support Trump at all, but even with something as simple as unemployment, I never felt this was even needed until I got laid off myself…and was glad it was there.
March 21, 2016 at 6:41 PM #796010FlyerInHi
Guest[quote=flyer] those who are being duped into voting for, what will most likely be proven to be empty promises, will become the victims of their own ignorance. That said, everyone is certainly free to believe whatever they want to believe.[/quote]
Let see how disappointment will look like….. The “victims of their own ignorance” are more likely people who want to return to the past. For example banning gay marriage, or abortion, or repealing Obama care.
Gay marriage, and abortion and Obamacare are here to stay with no chance of going back… Maybe a little on abortion in some states. On economics, some deficit spending, and not a balanced budget, is the consensus. A debt level at a portion of the economy is healthy. Nobody, not even Trump will deport unauthorized residents.
Those are all dead end issues that will lead to disappointment on the right.For progressives, however, there is a path forward. Universal health care with some form of single payer, combined with private health insurance choices, will happen. It’s just a matter of time. Gay marriage will become part of the fabric of American life, etc… On social issues, public opinion is progressive. We will move ahead sooner or later.
Conservatives have fought so many issues in vain, only to fold eventually (universal suffrage, social security, civil rights, Vietnam, Iraq, etc…) All that does is retard progress and cause human suffering.
For progressives who embrace a changing world, there is path forward. We just want to move faster. The slow pace of change is disappointing… but optimism and hope are always there. Sunny ways, my friends, sunny ways.
Edit: I should add Cuba to the list of success/disappointment.
Obama’s trip to Cuba is a great success for progressives. For years we were disappointed, but because we kept hope alive, and continued to support the right course of action, we were nicely rewarded. Still a lot to be done. And so sad that people suffered for decades because of stubbornness and intransigence.March 21, 2016 at 7:28 PM #796014SK in CV
Participant[quote=flyer]I realize others have stated they disagree, but, personally, I see bs and chaos on both sides. The few times I’ve tuned in to listen to either party speak, I’ve heard raving, ranting and promises made that only a fool would believe could actually be accomplished in reality–given the involvement of the three branches of government–vs. a monarchy–which the candidates appear to believe exists in the US.
Pandering to the masses has become an art form in this election beyond anything I’ve ever seen in my lifetime, and those who are being duped into voting for, what will most likely be proven to be empty promises, will become the victims of their own ignorance. That said, everyone is certainly free to believe whatever they want to believe.[/quote]
Campaign rhetoric isn’t chaos. Candidates state their positions. Things they want to do. Some are interpreted as promises. Other than tea baggers, nobody holds candidates responsible when they try to turn their agendas into law and fail because they can’t get support for those agendas. There has been no chaos on the dem side. There isn’t even any subjectivity in that assertion. The word has a very specific meaning. As presidential campaigns go, there hasn’t even been much in the way of BS.
March 21, 2016 at 11:39 PM #796015Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=flyer] those who are being duped into voting for, what will most likely be proven to be empty promises, will become the victims of their own ignorance. That said, everyone is certainly free to believe whatever they want to believe.[/quote]
Let see how disappointment will look like….. The “victims of their own ignorance” are more likely people who want to return to the past. For example banning gay marriage, or abortion, or repealing Obama care.
Gay marriage, and abortion and Obamacare are here to stay with no chance of going back… Maybe a little on abortion in some states. On economics, some deficit spending, and not a balanced budget, is the consensus. A debt level at a portion of the economy is healthy. Nobody, not even Trump will deport unauthorized residents.
Those are all dead end issues that will lead to disappointment on the right.For progressives, however, there is a path forward. Universal health care with some form of single payer, combined with private health insurance choices, will happen. It’s just a matter of time. Gay marriage will become part of the fabric of American life, etc… On social issues, public opinion is progressive. We will move ahead sooner or later.
Conservatives have fought so many issues in vain, only to fold eventually (universal suffrage, social security, civil rights, Vietnam, Iraq, etc…) All that does is retard progress and cause human suffering.
For progressives who embrace a changing world, there is path forward. We just want to move faster. The slow pace of change is disappointing… but optimism and hope are always there. Sunny ways, my friends, sunny ways.
Edit: I should add Cuba to the list of success/disappointment.
Obama’s trip to Cuba is a great success for progressives. For years we were disappointed, but because we kept hope alive, and continued to support the right course of action, we were nicely rewarded. Still a lot to be done. And so sad that people suffered for decades because of stubbornness and intransigence.[/quote]Understand how the resolution of the issues mentioned above could be considered interesting, positive and progressive to some, but, the point of my posts concern the 90% of the population (one of the largest percentages in history) who are currently dividing 25% of the wealth (vs. the top 10% who hold 75% of the wealth) in this country who may be seeking a political savior who will magically hand them the lives they desire on every level–especially financially–and how that relates to the current campaigns. This type of extreme inequality is the stuff of which revolutions have been made.
Since optimism doesn’t cover things like tuition, a mortgage or retirement etc.–imo, they may be very disappointed to find their lives–with regard to these issues–the core essentials of life–will not change much, if at all, and may become worse (since wealth inequality is predicted to increase in the coming decades)–during the term(s)of any future administration.
Imo, the acid test will come when we see how the wealth gap numbers look four or five years from now. These numbers should clearly tell us if the promises, campaign rhetoric, expectations, dreams, or anything else we may want to call them have actually become reality for those who have pinned their hopes on politicians.
March 22, 2016 at 7:08 AM #796016livinincali
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]
Gay marriage, and abortion and Obamacare are here to stay with no chance of going back… Maybe a little on abortion in some states. On economics, some deficit spending, and not a balanced budget, is the consensus. A debt level at a portion of the economy is healthy. Nobody, not even Trump will deport unauthorized residents.
Those are all dead end issues that will lead to disappointment on the right.For progressives, however, there is a path forward. Universal health care with some form of single payer, combined with private health insurance choices, will happen. It’s just a matter of time. Gay marriage will become part of the fabric of American life, etc… On social issues, public opinion is progressive. We will move ahead sooner or later.
[/quote]Aren’t you contradicting yourself in these 2 paragraphs.
First you say Obamacare is here to stay then you say we’re going to have universal health coverage. Wouldn’t that mean Obamacare is getting replaced. As I see it Obamacare will likely cease to function if they can’t get costs under control. There’s nothing that forces an insurance company to operate in the exchanges and if costs continue to rise and healthy individuals drop plans then the insurance companies will just stop offering plans in various markets. It might end up worse than before. People used to be able to buy some sort of stripped down/catastrophic plan. That could be replaced by a situation where they can’t buy any plan at all because no insurance company offers any in their market.March 22, 2016 at 7:58 AM #796017Participant[quote=livinincali]As I see it Obamacare will likely cease to function if they can’t get costs under control. There’s nothing that forces an insurance company to operate in the exchanges and if costs continue to rise and healthy individuals drop plans then the insurance companies will just stop offering plans in various markets. It might end up worse than before. [/quote]
Unlikely to happen. Under the ACA, insurance companies have no incentive to get costs under control, except to remain competitive with other insurance companies. There are no limits as to what they can charge, so long as they use the statutory percentage for health care.
There are no new sudden cost increases under the ACA. There is a continuation of cost increases that dates back decades. And that includes both costs of medical care and premium costs. There were safeguards in place under the original law, to allow small insurance co-ops to succeed during the first few years, in case of catastrophic losses. Those safeguards were removed, guaranteeing failure of some of these coops. But the large insurance companies are doing just fine in most states. In states they’re not doing fine, they’ll figure it out. Their business is medical insurance. They’re unlikely to abandon controlled markets for their products.
March 22, 2016 at 8:52 AM #796018Participant[quote=SK in CV]
Unlikely to happen. Under the ACA, insurance companies have no incentive to get costs under control, except to remain competitive with other insurance companies. There are no limits as to what they can charge, so long as they use the statutory percentage for health care.There are no new sudden cost increases under the ACA. There is a continuation of cost increases that dates back decades. And that includes both costs of medical care and premium costs. There were safeguards in place under the original law, to allow small insurance co-ops to succeed during the first few years, in case of catastrophic losses. Those safeguards were removed, guaranteeing failure of some of these coops. But the large insurance companies are doing just fine in most states. In states they’re not doing fine, they’ll figure it out. Their business is medical insurance. They’re unlikely to abandon controlled markets for their products.[/quote]
Of course there are costs increases under the ACA. Having to insure people with pre-existing conditions and having to create plans that insure things beyond what their previous plans insured both increased costs. There were a variety of people that were forced to change their health insurance plan because it did not meet the requirements specified in the law. For many of those people health insurance became more expensive rather than less expensive. I’m sure BG can write a novel about it.
In addition they cannot just raise premiums to whatever they want. They have to get approval from regulatory bodies. Even if they could raise the prices to whatever they’d like eventually it becomes too expensive and healthy people stop signing up. Why is United Health considering leaving the exchanges if everything is fine and they’ll just figure it out. I think they are figuring it out. It might be more profitable to stick to corporate health plans and ditch offering plans on the exchanges.
March 22, 2016 at 9:30 AM #796019Participant[quote=livinincali][quote=SK in CV]
Unlikely to happen. Under the ACA, insurance companies have no incentive to get costs under control, except to remain competitive with other insurance companies. There are no limits as to what they can charge, so long as they use the statutory percentage for health care.There are no new sudden cost increases under the ACA. There is a continuation of cost increases that dates back decades. And that includes both costs of medical care and premium costs. There were safeguards in place under the original law, to allow small insurance co-ops to succeed during the first few years, in case of catastrophic losses. Those safeguards were removed, guaranteeing failure of some of these coops. But the large insurance companies are doing just fine in most states. In states they’re not doing fine, they’ll figure it out. Their business is medical insurance. They’re unlikely to abandon controlled markets for their products.[/quote]
Of course there are costs increases under the ACA. Having to insure people with pre-existing conditions and having to create plans that insure things beyond what their previous plans insured both increased costs. There were a variety of people that were forced to change their health insurance plan because it did not meet the requirements specified in the law. For many of those people health insurance became more expensive rather than less expensive. I’m sure BG can write a novel about it.
In addition they cannot just raise premiums to whatever they want. They have to get approval from regulatory bodies. Even if they could raise the prices to whatever they’d like eventually it becomes too expensive and healthy people stop signing up. Why is United Health considering leaving the exchanges if everything is fine and they’ll just figure it out. I think they are figuring it out. It might be more profitable to stick to corporate health plans and ditch offering plans on the exchanges.
When Obama said that you don’t have to change your insurance if you don’t want to, he was 100% correct. He just should have added the caveat that if your insurance company changes their policy, it will have to conform to the new law. Every existing policy in force when the law was passed could have remained, and allowed. The insurance companies, elected, voluntarily, to change every one of their policies. That increased costs.
The law was passed 6 years ago tomorrow. There have been no changes since that time that would create sudden increases in costs. In the first 5 years of the laws existence, premiums went up at the slowest rate in decades. Health care spending went up at the slowest rate in decades.
Insurance companies can increase their rates any way they want, so long as they can prove that the rates are justifiable under the law. The law allows for an MLR of 80% for individual plans and 85% for group plans.
I don’t know about you, but I’ve got refunds every single year, either directly or through my employer, since that part of the law went into effect. Which means that the premiums charged created a MLR of less than the limit.
United health hasn’t left yet. And if they do, competitors will replace them. Insurance is extremely profitable business. If Blue Cross and Aetna can make money, then United Health can.
March 22, 2016 at 10:02 AM #796020ParticipantI really didn’t think these words would be prescient so quickly.
[quote=SK in CV]
Extreme is deporting 12 million people who haven’t caused any problems. Extreme is not allowing more than a billion people entry into the country because of what other people have done. Extreme is passing laws that endanger the lives of millions of women. Those are policies supported by every Republican candidate. How far do you think every Republican candidate is from deporting every single non-citizen Muslim, and rounding up all the Muslim citizens and putting them in internment camps? You tell me, is that a big stretch or a little stretch? And then tell me that both sides are similarly extreme.[/quote]Ted Cruz said this morning:
[quote=Ted Cruz]
We need to empower law enforcement to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized.[/quote]Secure Muslim neighborhoods. I live less than 1/2 a mile from a Mosque. He thinks half of my neighbors are terrorists and that my neighborhood needs to be locked down.
And some people really think that single payer healthcare is equally extreme?
March 22, 2016 at 10:40 AM #796021outtamojo
Participant[quote=SK in CV]I really didn’t think these words would be prescient so quickly.
[quote=SK in CV]
Extreme is deporting 12 million people who haven’t caused any problems. Extreme is not allowing more than a billion people entry into the country because of what other people have done. Extreme is passing laws that endanger the lives of millions of women. Those are policies supported by every Republican candidate. How far do you think every Republican candidate is from deporting every single non-citizen Muslim, and rounding up all the Muslim citizens and putting them in internment camps? You tell me, is that a big stretch or a little stretch? And then tell me that both sides are similarly extreme.[/quote]Ted Cruz said this morning:
[quote=Ted Cruz]
We need to empower law enforcement to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized.[/quote]Secure Muslim neighborhoods. I live less than 1/2 a mile from a Mosque. He thinks half of my neighbors are terrorists and that my neighborhood needs to be locked down.
And some people really think that single payer healthcare is equally extreme?[/quote]
Someone from the current crop of GOP candidates becoming President is an Isis wet dream.
March 22, 2016 at 10:53 AM #796022Guestouttamojo, speaking of Isis, there’s a movie airing on HBO soon. Should be interesting watch
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.