patrick.net

Vicente says

Pete Sessions floated a bill to do just that. Paul Ryan is on the record about it. Rick Santorum had it in his platform. Republicans have repeatedly used language that their reform efforts are only a first step down the slippery slope toward eliminating it entirely and putting all our eggs into Wall Street basket.

Sounds like Paul Ryan and Rick Santorum wanted to actually separate the $$ that seniors paid into, from the gov't; remove that $$ from the 'magic box slush fund' as it's currently constituted and called "Social Security", and have it allocated into a savings/401K/IRA acct of some sort. Taking the $$ that these people paid into, and **GASP** take it away from the gov't, so that seniors can manage it on there own, and **GASP** not trust the gov't's promises that the $$ will be there when they need it?

After Pelosi's 'you have to vote for it before you get to see it' moment, I wouldn't trust anything this administration says......

Sooo, what's the problem you have with these ideas? I know it makes so much sense, it's labeled 'radical'....

edvard2 says

But you can't blame Obamacare on that situation when back then and even now nothing from it has even been implemented yet.

Really you do know that October every thing but the mandated part will have been in place. What do you guys, think there's rooms and rooms of technical and administrative people who on January 1st is going to flip some magical switch and then Abracadabra Obamacare will light up, sputter, the 20 Diesel engines the size of Niagara falls will fire up, and massive smoke stacks will start churning out thick smoke, signalling the new era of Obamacare, and everything will somehow be different than they are right now at this moment?

AH Crap!!!! You're still waiting to see what's in it, aren't you?

If Obamacare was the traveling Circus, at this point they would be tearing down the tent, and loading it onto a train, taking the show to the next city.

THIS IS THE A GAME!

edvard2 says

As far as Nader, well I don't really have a great deal of respect for him mainly because

Because he was the blue print for pretty much how the Liberals do everything today, by hijacking ignorance and fear, and injecting their own logic into the works.

Sounds about right to me, the Sons always resent the Fathers, to some degree.

edvard2 says

So ironically Nadar might have done more in regards to impeding fuel economy by dissing the Corvair.

--------------------------------------
Ed, The Corvair was more about sportiness, not so much 'economy'... Nader was calling out a GM product that put its engine in the back, which relied on its inferior, antiquated rear suspension. Porsches of the day didn't have this problem. GM did eventually correct the suspension problem, but to allude Nader was the cause of Detroit's unwillingness to build a small, light, gas sipping cars is a crock of sheep dip.

Detroit built (and builds) what Americans want. Period. We didn't want to buy small, stuffy cars back then. And guess what? Detroit obliged.... Meanwhile, over in Europe, GM and Ford were building all sorts of small 4 cylinder cars during the 60's and 70's.. why? Because Europeans wanted them. End of story. one and done.

AverageBear says

Taking the $$ that these people paid into, and **GASP** take it away from the gov't, so that seniors can manage it on there own, and **GASP** not trust the gov't's promises that the $$ will be there when they need it?

The problem with such an idea and also why it would be such a monumentally bad idea is that by taking SS out of a government controlled fund and instead putting into a 401k, or such fund is that then you would have a situation where the value of those funds would be strictly tied to the performance of the stock market.

The other problem with that is if you were to suddenly flood the stock market with 100's of millions of new buyers this would in turn dilute the total shares, an thus performance would be drastically reduced.

So what these "genius" politicians are suggesting is that it would be a wayyyy better idea to take everyone's money and bet it all on black, because even though I suggest everyone should have a 401k and stocks, that's precisely what it is. Its betting. This isn't a radical idea. Its a stupid idea no matter what side of the isle you're on. SS is meant to be a readily available, constant, and consistent form of income. Sticking them into stocks totally defeats that purpose.

AverageBear says

Ed, The Corvair was more about sportiness, not so much 'economy'... Nader was calling out a GM product that put its engine in the back, which relied on its inferior, antiquated rear suspension. Porsches of the day didn't have this problem. GM did eventually correct the suspension problem, but to allude Nader was the cause of Detroit's unwillingness to build a small, light, gas sipping cars is a crock of sheep dip.

Baloney. The Corvair was in fact mean to and eventually did become an entire lineup of mainly economy cars. They made not only a 2 door and convertible version, but they also made 4 door sedans, vans, and pickup trucks using the same platform. Not sure what a Porsche has to do with a Corvair as again- they were not sold or marketed as sports cars unlike the Porsches of the day.

The reason the Corvair was created was as a direct competitor to Volkswagon, which at that time was enjoying some success in the US market.

The Captain said: everything will somehow be different than they are right now at this moment?
In California, we'll have the exchanges. Interestingly enough, most of the insurers beat Kaiser on price. I'd say that's radically different than what we have now. A year into it is where it will get even more interesting. Will Kaiser have capacity and become more aggressive in pricing? Or will rates rise to meet Kaiser where they're at now?

EBGuy says

n California, we'll have the exchanges. Interestingly enough, most of the insurers beat Kaiser on price. I'd say that's radically different than what we have now.

I've actually been extremely happy with Kaiser, which is what I've had for 5-6 years. I have yet to have any sort of bad experience with them thus far. So I'll probably just stick with them.

How can I get it through to you guys, that at this point all insurance companies could afford to give insurance for free, free of any premiums!
It's the copays, coins and deductibles is where they make their money in an industry where they set the going rate for a procedure, then dictates how much of that money the Doctors and Hospitals get.

FUCK I'm the high school dropout remember, why do I always feel, that I'm the smartest guy in the room with you people?

Dude. you don't need to "Get through" to us guys. All you've done so far in regards to the "proof" you claim to have as to why Obamacare will surely fail is based off of your own ancedotal, personal healthcare related experiences, which BTW happened BEFORE any of Obamacare was ever implemented. So in other words... you have no case.

End of story.

edvard2 says

Not sure what a Porsche has to do with a Corvair as again- they were not sold or marketed as sports cars unlike the Porsches of the day.

The comparison of Corvairs to Porsche is made because both cars had rear mounted air cooled six cylinder boxer engines. The cars are similar enough that its not unusual today to see Corvairs with more modern Porsche engines.

http://www.autozine.org/Archive/GM/classic/Corvair.html

Overall, GM produced 1.8 million units of Corvair in various body style, including 235,000 units of 2-door Monza and Corsa from 1965. Sales dropped significantly since 1966 because of the book "Unsafe at Any Speed" written by a young lawyer called Ralph Nader. In that book, Nader attacked the Big 3 for producing unsafe cars. It took the early Chevrolet Corvair as an example, describing how its rear-engined layout and swing axle suspension led to unpredictable oversteer hence accidents. Although Corvair had already switched to new suspension by the time the book published, the negative publicity damaged its reputation.

However, what killed the Corvair was not Ralph Nader but pony cars. The huge success of Ford Mustang forced GM to develop its own pony car, Chevrolet Camaro. It overlapped with Corvair but provided more performance and features. GM stopped promoting Corvair in the last years and let it died quietly in 1969. A sad end to probably the most unusual American production car in history.

Keep in mind the book dealt with automotive safety - The Corvair was just one example of an "unsafe" product.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed

Its not that cars could not be made safer - Ford tried in the 50's to introduce a padded dash but consumers rejected it. Volvo had made safety a top priority in its designs thanks to the wife of one of the execs. She was a rehab nurse who described in detail the injuries her patients had sustained in car crashes.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-210183.html

Volvo did have a US presence but in those days automotive safety was not high on the list for most consumers. Hell most people STILL need to be nagged to wear seat belts.

edvard2 says

Not sure what a Porsche has to do with a Corvair

Both are rear engined cars. The Porsche had a great rear suspension. The Corvair had a swing arm that GM cobbled together and stuck with for far too many model years. Under certain conditions, this type of suspension results in "tuck-under" of a rear wheel, causing unpredictable bad handling under certain conditions. I read of a highway patrol officer who watched a Corvair crest a bridge ahead of him and roll without provocation. The officer came upon the woman's arm in the road before reaching the wreck.
After much foot-dragging, GM released a new model year with a purpose-built suspension that was rather good, but the make had such a horrible reputation that it sold poorly and was dropped.
In the 80s, GM did THE EXACT SAME THING with the Fiero. The rear suspension wasn't dangerous per se, it was an off-the-shelf front wheel drivetrain and suspension built into the rear of what was supposed to be a "sporty" model. The 1988 model year was actually pretty good, suspension wise, but the model's fate had been sealed by pushing out the inferior version for so long.

The way Republicans are handling Obamacare is similar. Reluctantly offering a half-assed cobbled together shell of a great concept, watching it fumble in the real world, then saying, "See, America doesn't want this!"

I own a classic 1955 Ford Fairlane. To be honest, the car handles very poorly, as did most cars of that era. Cars back then sat on sluggish, sloppy suspension systems. At least the American cars did. Mine wallows like a pig in the mud. A modern car driver who has never driven a classic would be shocked. It takes some muscle and some skill to drive cars like these. You have to really anticipate things like curves, hills, and stop signs well in advance. The cars simply do not respond quickly. My car has an ALL-METAL dash, lap belts, no crumple zones, and a simple rail frame with little reinforcement in front of the engine. Often in frontal accidents, engines in cars like these got shoved into the passenger compartment. So in other words, your typical car of the 50's and 60's was a big metal box with passengers more like eggs sitting in the seats.

I say this because a former housemate owned a 63' Corvair Monza. I drove the car several times myself. To me the car handled a bit better than my Ford, which is close enough to the same era. So in other words, the handling of Corvairs was not entirely different from cars from that era to start. Likewise its not like the cars of that era were shining examples of safety either. What sold cars then was size, economy ( how BIG a car you can get for the money), and styling.

Yes- I will agree that GM was infamous with bean-counting, taking cars that had been well-engineered as initial models and then making them as cheaply as possible. But they did with with ALL of their cars ( GM's truck division is a totally separate entity). Thus the Corvair was built under this same penny-pinching system as the rest of their lineup.

To say Nader's book didn't do great damage to the Corvair brand is a understatement. The fact that to this day, a full 50 years later any mention of the word Corvair is quickly followed by a mention of "Unsafe at any speed" is proof that once published, the reputation and image of the brand was forever tarnished and ultimately what partially led to its cease of manufacture.

edvard2 says

EBGuy says

I've actually been extremely happy with Kaiser, which is what I've had for 5-6 years. I have yet to have any sort of bad experience with them thus far. So I'll probably just stick with them.

That makes one of us!
I had Kaiser through a former employer. The call center was under pressure to make calls shorter, while trying to make an appointment two times, the operator suddenly pretended she couldn't hear me and terminated the call.
A cabinet door fell on my big toenail, which became infected. The doctor spent 10 minutes lecturing me on how not to cut ingrown nails; I just wanted to see if antibiotics would help it heal.
There was this crazy "Nurse Jackie" type running one of the adult urgent care units; the appointment takers chuckled knowingly when I swiftly requested the other unit.
I went in for a rash once and they condescendingly prescribed neosporin. I went back because the rash was worsening, and Nurse Jackie asked if I was using Neosporin. When I said yes, she practically screamed WHY ARE YOU USING THAT IT IS WHAT IS CAUSING THE RASH!?!?
My erstwhile boss got a heart valve; the nurse greeted him in the morning with, "We didn't think you would make it through the night!" I think they decided he was expensive to maintain on his coumadin and regular visits. He had a stroke with one-sided paralysis and THEY SENT HIM HOME, it took angry relatives in their faces to get him admitted.
A once-great medical system seems to have been reduced to a jiffy-lube of healthcare.

CaptainShuddup says

FUCK I'm the high school dropout remember, why do I always feel, that I'm the smartest guy in the room with you people?

Because you are delusional and live inside a bubble.

It's because he's stuck in his limited egocentric ways. Not everyone gets more humble and wise they age.

CaptainShuddup says

FUCK I'm the high school dropout remember, why do I always feel, that I'm the smartest guy in the room with you people?

The reason might be the same reason you couldn't get through high school.

When you "feel" you understand something when you actually don't, that leads to failing your classes and not being able to finish high school.

Apparently the pattern hasn't changed.

rooemoore says

Because you are delusional and live inside a bubble.

Which is, I guess, somehow worse than being delusional and living on an amen corner...

New Renter says

Ford tried in the 50's to introduce a padded dash but consumers rejected it

McNamara joined Ford in '56 and implemented many safety features that are still in used today.

I still wish the neckbelt had caught on, especially in California.

Passengers in a '97 Chrysler LeBaron wear neckbelts, which were recalled Monday for causing explosive decapitations, launching victims' severed heads through windshields at upwards of 200 mph.

edvard2 says

Dude. you don't need to "Get through" to us guys. All you've done so far in regards to the "proof" you claim to have as to why Obamacare will surely fail is based off of your own ancedotal, personal healthcare related experiences, which BTW happened BEFORE any of Obamacare was ever implemented. So in other words... you have no case.

End of story.

Obamacare is already a train wreck. You don't have to argue with the Cap'n....Just listen to Max Baucus... You know him right? He's one of the 'architects' of Obamacare, and even he's publicly admitted as such. Care to refute an expert like Baucus? Funny how after he announced his retirement, he's more apt to tell the truth about this fuckin abortion of an idea that got jammed down our throats.... Such a great idea, that we had Pelosi lying through her teeth, back room arm twisting, promises of exemptions to unions and friends of Obama. How can you honestly still support this piece of shit legislation? Staggers the imagination.....

Her state does not take subsidies, so she is mad at the POTUS?

Wonderful logic.

We are a third world country.
No Vacations
No Healthcare
No Support for the poor.

Her state did not take the subsidies, so she is mad a the POTUS? damn, I wish i understood that logic.

"...she is registering as a Republican"

Should you be concerned that she might have dementia?

AverageBear says

Obamacare is already a train wreck. You don't have to argue with the Cap'n....Just listen to Max Baucus... You know him right? He's one of the 'architects' of Obamacare, and even he's publicly admitted as such. Care to refute an expert like Baucus? Funny how after he announced his retirement, he's more apt to tell the truth about this fuckin abortion of an idea that got jammed down our throats.... Such a great idea, that we had Pelosi lying through her teeth, back room arm twisting, promises of exemptions to unions and friends of Obama. How can you honestly still support this piece of shit legislation?

So you're saying that it's NOT better than Nothing?

I can't wait until these guys get their first bills for shit they've seen, from people they never saw.

They'll either find religion or the GOP.

What the captain doesn't realize, is that the media (Fox etc), the propaganda and he have so effectively lowered expectations for Obamacare, that it's nearly guaranteed at this point to be a raging success.

That is compared to what everyone expected.

It's one of the reasons we probably get another democrat (Hilary?) in 2016. Because the republicans will still be talking about killing OBamacare, at a time when peolpe are feeling decent about it. Democrats will only be talking about tweaking it, to improve it's flaws.

If by some chance you're right, and it just totally blows, then democrats probably still win the debate, because the public by then should be ready for medicare for all.

marcus says

What the captain doesn't realize

Marcus you seem like a smart feller, say aren't you an educator of some sort?

Is this really the analytical skills you teach your class?

I implore you to find facts that disputes everything, or anything for that matter that I have said to date. Come on, ACA kicks off in October, the only portion left will be the mandated part which will start on January 1st.

Tick Tock! Come on the clock is ticking, and YET! You guys claim, that ACA hasn't even taken effect yet. How could legislation as big and important as this, here we are on the approaching the eleventh hour. And the only possitive thing you can say about it is, more people will be covered.

Covered, To what degree? OK premiums might be cheap depending on more or less you value your hard and harder to come by money, that Insurance executives and Washington Snot Whistles have so arbitrarily deemed you must pay. Some will pay more some will pay less, but "Everyone will pay their fair share". Not my words those were Obama's.

In all of Obama's rhetoric to date he has only addressed the premiums, and who will be covered.
He and everyone involved has danced around the question... "Who will pay for healthcare?"

That question has never been honestly answered as of yet, just 4 months away from ACA live date.

NOW! I'm here to put it to you young man, that everyone will pay for it.
Everyone will be on the hook for premiums some more than others of course, but we will all be responsible for our Copays, CoIns, and Deductibles. Do you honestly think that a family making 75K combined can really afford to go to a Doctor for something they think would be routine, under the assumption that they are paying their monthly premiums, then get blind sided by a $3,000 bill for the hospital, $500 for this tech, $500 for that lab, $500 for some mysterious Doctor that you don't remember even being in the mix.

But yet! Amazingly enough, Your Doctor that poor bastard all he got out of you was a measly $50 company, and is the only son of a bitch you are even aware of that performed the procedure. He did all of the fucking work and only got $50. Yet you'll see upto $4500 or more in bills nobody can verify are actually honest and justly due.

Oh and get this, once you think you're finished finally paying that $4500 in dishonest bills. You'll get another $235 or $175 from obscure entities, with vague descriptions on what you owe that money for.

Let's not kid our selves, this was billed as Healthcare overhaul and reform.

Seems to me, it's more crooked than ever.

Now either refute my findings on this eleventh hour, with facts on what ACA says it will do about out of control costs, where it stipulates that it wont be buried in hidden bills back to the patients. Or understand that it is YOU that don't realize Shit about ACA.

edvard2 says

Baloney. The Corvair was in fact mean to and eventually did become an entire lineup of mainly economy cars. They made not only a 2 door and convertible version, but they also made 4 door sedans, vans, and pickup trucks using the same platform. Not sure what a Porsche has to do with a Corvair as again- they were not sold or marketed as sports cars unlike the Porsches of the day.

Ed, I stand corrected. I forgot about the pickup/van line. But those 1st Gen 2- and 4-door cars DID have dangerous handling tendencies till the suspension was addressed. I only mention Porsche because it was a rear engine/rear drive car. Should have mentioned the VW bug as well. (how could I forget the bug?)

However, I do stand by my statement that Nader alone could not be remotely responsible for Detroit to quit trying to make small cars. They built what we wanted; it's that simple. Even no amount of CAFE rules has stopped that.

CaptainShuddup says

American media has managed to raise the most petty, whiny, greedy, self centered, self concerned generation, the world has ever seen.

You are talking about the Boomers, right?

marcus says

Because the republicans will still be talking about killing OBamacare, at a time when peolpe are feeling decent about it. Democrats will only be talking about tweaking it, to improve it's flaws.

Marcus, by your definition, when Obamacare architect Max Baucus tells us publicly that Obamacare is a 'Train Wreck', is he secretly saying he's just 'tweaking it to improve flaws'??

I don't think ANYBODY on Pat.Net (even you w/ your superior education) knows more about Obamacare than Max Baucus. So when he publicly announces that Obamacare is trully a "Train Wreck", I kinda take the local Obamacare Cheerleaders w/a grain a salt (a grain the size of Hoboken, that is)......

AverageBear says

Obamacare is already a train wreck. You don't have to argue with the Cap'n....Just listen to Max Baucus... You know him right? He's one of the 'architects' of Obamacare, and even he's publicly admitted as such. Care to refute an expert like Baucus?

Obamacare has not even been implemented yet so again- just because you and all those who were against ANY form of healthcare system from day one say that its a trainwreck doesn't really mean much of anything.AverageBear says

Ed, I stand corrected. I forgot about the pickup/van line. But those 1st Gen 2- and 4-door cars DID have dangerous handling tendencies till the suspension was addressed. I only mention Porsche because it was a rear engine/rear drive car. Should have mentioned the VW bug as well. (how could I forget the bug?)

However, I do stand by my statement that Nader alone could not be remotely responsible for Detroit to quit trying to make small cars. They built what we wanted; it's that simple. Even no amount of CAFE rules has stopped that.

Except that you are wrong. As noted before, subsequent investigations of the first generation of the corvair proved that its handling and suspension system was no less prone to handling issues than any other car of that era. If you don't believe me I suggest reading up on your history. I've been a car nut all my life so I am more than well-qualified to make a statement in regards to the Corvair and its downfall.

Also- if you go back and re-read my initial response, my comments were in direct regard to the Corvair and the PR damage it received as a result of Nader's book. The Corvair was the only air cooled, rear engined car that GM ever made and once that program was canceled they never made any others. You are also incorrect that there wasn't an appetite for small cars in the US at that time. VW's, Alfas, and many other smaller, primarily European cars were selling rather well at the time and thus why GM and Ford entered that market. So while the public determines what products are wanted, small cars were selling at that time period. That GM got burned by Nader's book likely had some significance in their departure from the small car business.

As we speak the Obama administration is working tirelessly stocking a huge warehouse full of Obamacare boxes. Come January 1st they will start distributing them to every American citizen, it will go off with out a hitch on that marvelous magical day that will be January 1st 2014.
Why not even the NYE hang over, rain, sleet or snow, will stop the post office from delivering us a big ole box of Obamacare.

On January 1st when you get your Obamacare box, and open it up to look what's in it. Come back and tell me how right I've been all along.

AverageBear says

Up next, Obama's Verizon snooping scandal....

Don't forget the EPA 70,000 sqft man cave that the government spends 62,500 a month on. But for me that's not the problem.
What bothers me is the double standards. For years the EPA has used things like rat droppings and mold as an excuse to condemn and or fine many businesses through out the United States for far less, but they waller and play in it.

For me that is the smoking gun that the EPA are bullies that use pseudo science to bully and inflict the will of local community Democrat agendas to close business or to strong arm land from rightful owners. But for their own needs and purposes, they have no such standard.

sbh says

Sounds like Paul Ryan and Rick Santorum wanted to actually separate the $$ that seniors paid into, from the gov't; remove that $$ from the 'magic box slush fund' as it's currently constituted and called "Social Security", and have it allocated into a savings/401K/IRA acct of some sort

Aside from elevating risk of capital loss/gain once that $ was in the stock market you have to wonder if most seniors would want that extra risk. I don't know of any studies but I bet retirees want reduced risk at that point in their lives. On the other hand, younger Americans might welcome having what would have been their SS tax go into an account they could more aggressively manage. I don't like Ryan, but I do like managing my own money. I'm used to it, and a damn sight better at it than the government.

I think retirees would rather trust their own judgement in managing their own $$ throughout their careers and into retirement, then rely on promises from the gov't. And keep in mind that this has nothig to do w/ "money that will go into the hands of Wall Street". There are other VERY safe places to put your $$ other than stocks. Although I manage 20-25 individual stocks for my retirement across 2 accounts, I think most retirees would rather see to it themselves to run their accts... But the biggest problem is actually getting the gubmint to actually 'let go' or 'release' the $$. This way, there's no shell game currently known as Social Security.... I have ZERO confidence that SS funds will be there for me when I retire in 25-30 years. Sadly, many Americans happen to believe this too.

JodyChunder says

rooemoore says

Because you are delusional and live inside a bubble.

Which is, I guess, somehow worse than being delusional and living on an amen corner...

Nailed it. I'm third from the right.

CaptainShuddup says

For years the EPA has used things like rat droppings and mold as an excuse to condemn and or fine many businesses through out the United States for far less, but they waller and play in it.

For me that is the smoking gun that the EPA are bullies that use pseudo science to bully and inflict the will of local community Democrat agendas to close business or to strong arm land from rightful owners. But for their own needs and purposes, they have no such standard.

Some of you might want to brush up what the EPA does. Mouse droppings and mold are certainly no laughing matter in certain circumstances. For example and particularly in drier states Hantavirus is present in some mouse feces. Hantavirus has a high fatality if caught by humans, and seeing as how dried mouse droppings are a primary form of spreading it, if a building were to have a severe mouse infestation, its totally reasonable to consider condemning from concerns to human health. The same goes for mold, seeing as how some forms of it are potentially fatal.

Many who are all for getting rid of the EPA don't realize that the EPA's job isn't just to monitor air quality. Its also about protecting human health from various man-made and environmental containments. For example many an industrial site has received a super-fund status due to the toxins present there. Look up "The Valley of the Drums" or "Love Canal". Pretty damned scary shit. There were a LOT of places like that, and prior to the EPA, these places were seldom monitored or cleaned up.AverageBear says

I think retirees would rather trust their own judgement in managing their own $$ throughout their careers and into retirement, then rely on promises from the gov't.

Yeah, bullshit. I've yet to meet a single retiree who is at all interested in having some other entity or system watch over and manage their SS. Whatever fantasy-world some of these GOP politicians have, where they've basically corrupted their party's image by proclaiming that any and all things tied to the government is naturally bad news while they themselves are in fact handsomely paid senators and congressmen, and thus being paid with MY tax dollars is further proof of their own incompetence. Using right-leaning ideology as a means to suggest investment is outright stupid.

edvard2 says

Some of you might want to brush up what the EPA does. Mouse droppings and mold are certainly no laughing matter in certain circumstances. For example and particularly in drier states Hantavirus is present in some mouse feces. Hantavirus has a high fatality if caught by humans, and seeing as how dried mouse droppings are a primary form of spreading it, if a building were to have a severe mouse infestation, its totally reasonable to consider condemning from concerns to human health. The same goes for mold, seeing as how some forms of it are potentially fatal.

Many who are all for getting rid of the EPA don't realize that the EPA's job isn't just to monitor air quality. Its also about protecting human health from various man-made and environmental containments. For example many an industrial site has received a super-fund status due to the toxins present there. Look up "The Valley of the Drums" or "Love Canal". Pretty damned scary shit.

The EPA didnt go after violators in Silicon Valley, they went after everyone in the manufacturing business, even those that never were found to have any violations.. between global competition and EPA regulations they did a great job of killing manufacturing in San Francisco Bay Area.

It made all the Environmental Zealots very pleased... you want to reconcile why we lost manufacturing across the board in this country and how it impacted the middle class.

AverageBear says

What you view as Obamacare 'propaganda' from Fox, just happens to be, well, news. News that CNN/MSNBC would rather hide and spike. Like Benghazi (throwing in a healthy does of lying by Susan Rice), and all the other scandals. It's that simple.

Not one word will be spoke by the liberals on PNet regarding CNN or MSNBC... not one...

rooemoore says

Nailed it. I'm third from the right.

Not a completely terrible band...I definitely figured you more for a Freddie and the Dreamers type:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/OcX3DLOCmGg

thomaswong.1986 says

The EPA didnt go after violators in Silicon Valley, they went after everyone in the manufacturing business, even those that never were found to have any violations.. between global competition and EPA regulations they did a great job of killing manufacturing in San Francisco Bay Area.

What in tar-nation are you talking about? Hello? In Silicon Valley there is a larger concentration of superfund sites than in just about any other place in the country. As mentioned before, the EPA is the agency that deems a site as a superfund site. These are former sites which at one time used trichloroethene (TCE) and vinyl chloride as an electronics cleaning agent. Those chemicals are extremely nasty and cause a long list of health effects.

The EPA does not "Go after" manufactures willy-nilly. Their job is to make sure that companys are safe for its workers. This means setting guidelines for such things as occupational exposure rates, classification of various substances such as chemicals and raw materials, and so forth.

But let's put it in another way: Do you actually think it would be better for workers and the general public to live and work in environments where there are absolutely no regulations or guidelines when it comes to pollutants and contamination? Would you enjoy working or living somewhere with chemicals and compounds of which no safety or handling information if known or documented? Do you think that it would be perfectly fine for companies to dump toxic waste right into the rivers, ground, and air? If that's what you think is a "good thing", then that would basically mean having no EPA or any regulation. In the end, who does that benefit? Do you think that would benefit you? If so, I am very curious as to how.

Like I said before. Some of you need to stop listening to what the right wing media tells you about the EPA and start actually learning about what it really does. Its not some liberal conspiracy. Its about the quality of the air you breathe, the water you drink, and the place that you work.

CaptainShuddup says

Now either refute my findings on this eleventh hour,

Okay, as far as I can tell, these are your findings. These are your facts.

Somehow, you're to have me believe (based on ?) that a family that has a bunch of health issuescome up is going to have copays and deductubles, of several thousand dollars. The concept of trading premium price for deductible in insurance is nothing new with Obamacare. I for one am all for that. Copays are also nothing new. I am also all for copays that are at least high enough to make people think a little bit about taking a doctors valuable time because they have the sniffles, while also helping defray the cost of everyone's premiums.

CaptainShuddup says

NOW! I'm here to put it to you young man, that everyone will pay for it.

Everyone will be on the hook for premiums some more than others of course, but we will all be responsible for our Copays, CoIns, and Deductibles. Do you honestly think that a family making 75K combined can really afford to go to a Doctor for something they think would be routine, under the assumption that they are paying their monthly premiums, then get blind sided by a $3,000 bill for the hospital, $500 for this tech, $500 for that lab, $500 for some mysterious Doctor that you don't remember even being in the mix.

But yet! Amazingly enough, Your Doctor that poor bastard all he got out of you was a measly $50 company, and is the only son of a bitch you are even aware of that performed the procedure. He did all of the fucking work and only got $50. Yet you'll see up to $4500 or more in bills nobody can verify are actually honest and justly due.

OBama and others note the need to bring health care costs down. I can see a common sense benefit of getting everyone covered, before being able to have some standardization of pricing.

Maybe I'm overly optimistic. But no, I'm just smart enough to see how it works out before judging it.