WatchCO Springs, center of anti-tax, anti-gov movement, cuts police & fire fighters, burns down, turns to federal gov for help. (bloomberg.com)
What would you do? Your choice apparently is to let the city burn or to admit your philosophy is a fraud & hypocrisy based on the unspoken assumption that after youve stripped away all the services and amenities the culture will still come to rescue you. Or can you offer a third?
I know one of you will accuse me of using CO Springs suffering to make a political point, but stuff it, the point was made months ago when the vote was taken to reduce and eliminate essential services.
So let's hear the great wisdom. School me please.
Follow
Befriend (5)
168 threads
5,070 comments
I'm going to be out for a while. But this evening I will look further to find something I can not find, which is the connection between forest fires and the EPA.
Obviously there are some forests that if they had been totally cut down for profit, they would not be able to burn, but this is what I call a hand waving argument, when it is tied to the cost of lumber or bad fires.
If there was an issue 30 years ago, that not an issue now, then...?
That certainly can't be part of a legitimate argument now.
Follow
Befriend
8 comments
Conservative view:
There are many people who do not take responsibility for their actions and don't get life insurance, don't get medical insurance, don't invest properly for retirement, don't eat right, don't make good life style choices, and the list goes on and on.
Let use an example of someone who doesn't get medical insurance and gets injured riding a motorcycle. He gets taken to an emergency room and gets treated without his consent. I think it is perfectly fine to require him to pay on a payment plan for treatment rendered etc. AFTER the fact. Once he is able to give consent he can decide the level of treatment he wants. Perhaps 10% of the population falls in this model - so the government via the court system forces payment and the rest of us still preserve our freedom. The liberal view is to basically force all the 90% to lose their freedom and inject massive government for all 100% instead of just focusing on the 10% who are not responsible.
Should we all have to give fingerprints, use GPS, because 10% of our are criminals? Should we all have to take drug tests because x% of our drug addicts? The list goes on an on ... Where does it end. And then when we have built a massive government who "protects" us from all those that are not responsible ... who will protect us from the new huge, powerful, and shockingly expensive government who forces "responsibility" under threat of fines and imprisonment -- and who then begins to define "responsible" behavior as what benefits the government and it's supporters.
Cheers
Follow
Befriend (48)
273 threads
12,494 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
jjmcdonald says
This doesn't make any sense. In your example, the majority of people already have health insurance and aren't going to be affected at all. How are they losing their freedom?
jjmcdonald says
The reason we live in a police state with the highest prison population in the world is Republicans. The reason there's a drug war is Republicans. By far the biggest expansions of government in the last 40 years have been under Republican rule.
So let me ask you, who are you voting for in November?
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
thomas.wong1986 says
Dang! That means we need to gut the federal government for all of it's out-of-control spending.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
marcus says
Can we get marcus some kind of award or something? I haven't heard anything that good since Nomograph.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
jjmcdonald says
That's the first well-reasoned "conservative" post I've seen here in a long time. Well done.
It's good to know that not all conservatives are just mind-numbed robots spouting AM Radio and Fox News propaganda.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
bob2356 says
That's the best summary of the modern right wing movement that I've ever seen. Well done sir.
And yet the right wing constantly blames poor black folks for wanting "something for nothing" via welfare checks. But when big banks get welfare, that's just fine!
Follow
Befriend (3)
12 threads
3,095 comments
wow ... up is down, left is right, good is bad. It has finally happened. You folks have now tried to project the complete leftist liberal mind and value set upon conservatives. lmao. good luck with that.
@marcus,
don't try to limit your search to just EPA's actions. The EPA is there, no doubt, but little minnie-me-EPA greeny freak orgs are there too. You will note that I said "green freaks" in my retort above too, least you begin to decry my facts before the ink dries. Gathering this stuff has opened up alot of crap The Sierra Club did too. Friggin Feinstein is a crook and a hack, but those libs love her to death.
@wthrfrk,
no conservative I know was/is for any bailout, so what are you talking about?
Close the border, send invaders down to build the fence for their citizenship, and start hanging death row and all gangsters, lets see how good life in America can get.
Follow
Befriend
8 comments
Hi Bob2356
A lot of us conservatives are appalled by the "Privatized profits, socialized losses" policies of the end of the Bush 2 admin and now the Obama admin. Bankruptcy is a part of capitalism and there is no "too big to fail company". And if it is truly "too big to fail" so that it requires a bailout then it is too big and should be broken up. I note that the "too big to fail" institutions are now bigger in terms of market share.
Cheers
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
jjmcdonald says
Amen. "Too big to fail" = socialism
Follow
Befriend
8 comments
Hi Iwog,
Obamacare or ACA will affect all Americans even those with insurance. The ACA requires that insurance companies only make 15% profit minus non-medical expenses. This will result in the medical insurance companies merging to grow bigger to limit the non-medical expenses. This limit will eliminate any new insurance companies with innovative ideas from being formed as their profit cannot be higher than big established companies. This is how the D's are trying to get closer to single payer.
The remaining insurance companies will have less competition and since innovative drugs and devices that lower costs will also lower profits, there will be far less incentive to push new innovations into the marketplace. Insurance companies now have a guaranteed market back the government power -- thus their stocks are doing very well. Medical drug and device manufacturers who innovate are not doing as well. Unfortunately, medical innovation is one area where the US is still the world leader, Obamacare is and will damage this industry.
Cheers.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
jjmcdonald says
Well, since when do insurance companies "innovate"? All they do is take your money, and (maybe) give some of it back when disaster strikes.
Other than that, your points are well taken.
Follow
Befriend (3)
12 threads
3,095 comments
that is what I was suggesting above with my "make insurance companies prevent fires" post. kinda.
Follow
Befriend
6 threads
489 comments
Alameda, CA
wthrfrk80 says
They think of new ways to rip you off?
Follow
Befriend
8 comments
Innovation takes place in many forms in insurance.
1. There are process innovations such as improved data processing through better software, support for on-line diagnosis, faster over-the-counter qualifications, support for out-patient care, noticing duplicate prescriptions and dangerous overlapping treatment plans. Insurance companies drive a lot of innovation in the medical industry by pushing doctors toward new lower cost effective treatments after they were proven out in one location. Going forward, innovations like these will not be profit effective for the insurance companies.
These types of innovation are acknowledged by the Obama admin but instead of encouraging the private sector with tax cuts, etc. Obama has directly thrown billions at medical records updates. Far more money than the entire insurance industry makes in a year in vain attempt to save money. Obama truly believes that government folks can drive innovation better than private industry - thus this medical record fiasco and green energy fiascos.
2. There are coverage innovations like coming up with different plans to meet the needs of various groups. Think car insurance - safe driver discounts, good grade discounts, bundling discounts, etc. All of this is done away with in Obamacare - so you are essentially going to have to pay for those that make poor lifestyle choices of pre-existing folks. I suspect as the cost of coverage skyrockets once all the pre-existing folks are finally covered ... the government will start to introduce additional penalties and coverage limits, etc.
3. Insurance companies are very tough on doctor's and their billing practices. There will far less incentive for the insurance companies to be tough on doctors as their profit is no longer directly tied to expense reduction. Innovation in terms of financial arrangements like HMOs were at one time, or groups of doctor's getting together to provide care, etc. will be extremely difficult to start because there is no additional profit incentive for investors to invest in various schemes.
I'm not saying that Obamacare is the end of the US healthcare system, but over time our healthcare system will lose the massive innovation edge we hold today, wait times will grow, and treatments become more scarce, medical tourism will increase. It will happen slowly, just as Medicare is getting worse every year now.
Cheers
Follow
Befriend (5)
168 threads
5,070 comments
Bap33 says
The EPA represent environmental interests of the people. They get in the way of corporate interests, who are the providers of all the anti-EPA propaganda.
You're a good ol boy bap, but on a gullibility scale of 1 to 10, your a 12.
You've got nothin.
Any legitimate claim that logging companies can make against EPA regulations would force a change in policy because they have big bucks lobbyists behind them. Plus after 8 yeas of Bush undoing a lot of the good CLinton did in the name of conservation (a conservative cause if there ever was one), I haven't heard of Obama doing much. The commie pinko homosexual nazi propaganda that all the dim bulb racist lap up is too strong for Obama to get behind hardly any near center issues (I'm not even talking left - that's WAY off the table).
Follow
Befriend (8)
203 threads
4,403 comments
Davis, CA
jjmcdonald says
None of those "innovations" are precluded by ACA.
1. Ridiculous. Insurance companies don't give 2 figs about cutting costs in specific areas, only HMO finance people do.
2. Ridiculous. ACA doesn't discourage differing coverage plans.
3. Ridiculous. Insurance companies need to "financially innovate" like we all need a hole in the head. If they were "tough on doctors" we wouldn't be seeing medical costs inflate faster than inflation for years as has been happening under the existing system.
Let's drop the "Obamacare" since we are moving forward with it. Your 3 points all seem to involve a lot of micro-management of healthcare by the insurance companies. It's always bad when government does it, but always good when a bunch of guys with actuarial tables do it? Strange.
Follow
Befriend (8)
203 threads
4,403 comments
Davis, CA
The "intelligent Republicans" will mewl and cry for Federal aid when disaster strikes. Oh and some tax handouts too for good measure. They only need help with their bootstrap purchase of course, otherwise they want government to not even exist. They won't talk about this of course, it's SHAMEFUL. They prefer to spend all their time resurrecting Reagan's corpse and the mythical Welfare Queen who hoovers up money faster than the Pentagon.
Follow
Befriend (5)
168 threads
5,070 comments
The facts prove that the republicans are the borrow and spend republicans, although maybe I prefer Iwog's, "they're the spend and spend republicans."
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
Yeah that's the thing. "Tax and spend" is more responsible than "borrow and spend." Sure, we'd all like to see less spending until it's OUR pet cause that gets cut.
Follow
Befriend (5)
168 threads
5,070 comments
The theory is that if you spend and spend, without ever paying for it, then the federal government will be under such financial pressure that all of the safety nets brought about by FDR and Johnson can be undone, and we can go back to the wonderful gilded age. Cheap labor and infinite riches for the 1% (maybe some spillover to the top 15 or 20%.) of course this doesn't take in to consideration our consumption driven economy. Details.
See "starve the beast."
Follow
Befriend (5)
168 threads
5,070 comments
I wonder whether we will get through this election cycle without democrats trying to explain how much of current deficit spending was initiated under Bush.
I think they figure the people won't understand, and so they'll let Obama be painted as a big spender.
Follow
Befriend
16 threads
4,426 comments
marcus says
The RED paint on the Golden Gate Bridge, like many other bridges, is lead based.. but we do scrape it off and it falls into the bay... yep lots of toxic lead floating in the Bay!
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
Alright TomWong, that's the last straw. That's just ridiculous far-right trolling.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
Yes I've heard about "starve the beast." A totally insane strategy.
Follow
Befriend
16 threads
4,426 comments
wthrfrk80 says
So we have a price to pay!marcus says
Could we back in the early years with the current EPA establish something like Silicon valley which produced lots of Semi products which was the engine of the tech revolution... yes we used lots of toxics chemicals and acids in our production years which seeped into the ground water wells..
I got news for you... there wouldnt be a Silicon Valley today and we would not had any boom in the economy. That same reason exists why Libs in govt and media dont want mfg in the USA. For them the environment far exceeds the needs of the economy and any benefits to the people. thats why they say.. those jobs are gone!
Follow
Befriend (1)
117 threads
971 comments
thomas.wong1986 says
Nor should it be. My question said nothing about requiring local fire stations or police depts to be responsible for federal land, only that they are equipped and able to handle their city's needs, and if these services are reduced is it proper that they then depend on federal support? Why do I have to keep spelling this out as if I were talking to a child?
And bringing in this business about the EPA and controlled burns, and why this may have happened etc etc, is just total BS in this context. It has zilch to do with the question at hand and everything to do with avoiding the issue and attempting to obscure the point and create another soapbox issue to play the "lib v con" game.
You guys love this game, I get it. And thats why you keep trying to drag us back to it. But situations like this, where people's homes and lives are burning and its horrific and the reasons are evident, doesn't it just for a second or two make you stop and realize it's not a game? There are consequences to choices?
Follow
Befriend (1)
117 threads
971 comments
thomas.wong1986 says
WTF? First off, this is totally off topic and I'm going to ask you to get back on topic - you can spout this on other threads or create one dedicated to your ideas of libs and how they just want to screw trees - but dude, are you insane? Is that your problem? Statements like that are just so beyond reality, they're honestly delusional.
Follow
Befriend (1)
117 threads
971 comments
thomas.wong1986 says
can you please stay on the topic of this thread? If you have nothing to say to the issue of the thread, and so far you have not, then please just stop making noise and obscuring the content. Christ, you're like a ten year old.
Follow
Befriend
8 comments
Hi Vincente,
Thanks for the feedback.
1. Yes, insurance companies do care about cost control. 85% of your insurance premiums already go to medical care cost. That is why the Obama administration picked 15% as the max profit allowed. Before Obamacare, insurance companies had to compete so if they wanted a greater market share by offering lower premiums they had to contain their costs through deals with "approved" doctors - in-system vs. not-in-system care, co-pays, avoiding certain pre-condition patients that were very expensive, etc.
After Obamacare many of the traditional avenues to contain costs have been removed and even worse the incentive to contain costs has been dramatically reduced. The incentive is to merge with other insurance companies.
2. The ACA removes the pre-existing condition for coverage and sets max premium payments. This greatly limits variability or flexibility that insurance companies have in determining how they want to offer coverage. Analogy time, you are not going to get a Ferrari if all you are allowed to pay is $10,000. Thus if someone wants a really premium plan they cannot get it as the government won't let them pay for it. This was a friction point with some unions.
3. The reason healthcare costs have skyrocketed is for many reasons - while the D's love to blame insurance companies, insurance companies did not create this mess. Remember medical insurance companies only keep 15% of every medical dollar. Obama has already wasted far more money on gov-run healthcare than the entire profit of the private insurance industry.
Reason healthcare cost are skyrocketing:
a. aging population
b. new innovative medical treatments that are extremely expensive
c. FDA regulations require massive costs in bringing drugs and devices to market
d. obesity problem in America
e. all kinds of federal, state, and local mandates that dictate quality of care, what is covered, record keeping, new privacy laws, etc.
Medical insurance companies are not and were not the problem. In fact, if anything they were buffering the full extent of the financial problem by being real cost control pains and aggravating a lot of high medical users. Now that Obamacare is in the process of removing their cost control function - it will be interesting to see how fast the D's have to move to re-institute mandatory price controls, care limitations. They are going to have to, it is only a matter of time.
Of course, the D's may just blame their gov-mandated and controlled insurance companies to take the heat for them and then say that the government must take over everything to get to a single payer government program. We'll see.
Cheers
Follow
Befriend (8)
203 threads
4,403 comments
Davis, CA
jjmcdonald says
Horseshit.
No disrespect, but they are bean-counters who care about the black box.
Let's put it in FIRE terms, since this thread is about FIRE, not about your obsession with ACA.
Do you think insurance companies go around policing the fire departments?
They care about their payout rates. There are a lot of factors in that, which they may look at. But they are used to determine the rates they charge, and the language of the terms under which they will actually pay off. I stretch the analogy a bit for you, since fire departments are not (currently) paid off by the insurance companies. But if they were, it still wouldn't change the calculus. Insurance companies look for ways to wiggle and not pay off your policy when your house burns, the same as they want to not pay when you have a pre-existing condition or your hernia is "too expensive" for them. Insurance is a huge con game where they want to do their best to get your money, and not give it back.
Follow
Befriend
8 comments
Hi Vicente,
I agree with you that insurance companies often are more focused on how not to payoff. Title insurance is the worst, Fire is pretty bad as you state, Life insurance is also not good. Car and Medical are actually among the best, if you define best as dollars in vs. dollars out on claims. It has been my experience that an insurance industry is better when the claim frequency is higher and for less money vs. when the claims are large and rare. In fact, with title insurance it seems you are doing nothing more than hiring lawyers to oppose you with your insurance.
I've never had a problem with medical insurance not paying up. I also think it is appropriate for an insurance company to challenge expenses -- if they did not then fraud would be easy and rates would go through the roof. There is a balance. Now will less incentive to challenge expenses under ACA, I expect that costs will increase even faster - until the gov steps in with cost controls and rationing.
Cheers
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
kentm says
But "us vs. them" games are so much fun. Why do you think college and professional sports make so much money? And why else would people sign up en-masse for military service to kill those "goddam foreigners"?
Follow
Befriend (8)
203 threads
4,403 comments
Davis, CA
jjmcdonald says
It gets more complicated when it's an HMO though right? The doctors and insurance guys working hand in hand should ideal according to some. However my brother gets a hernia and has what looks like an alien coming out his abdomen, what happens? He goes in and is told "yeah we can schedule to do something about that in .... maybe 6 weeks". Because they ration the healthcare and tightly schedule availability of surgery rooms. Only persistent pressure and threats to come sit in their offices with his condition evident, sped up the process. Can you just "switch providers" in free market idealism while you are in the middle of a medical problem that makes you realize your provider is crap? No. And when you do switch, you won't know if they are any less a bunch of dimwits than the last guys until another emergency crops up.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
jjmcdonald says
It sounds like a great Machiavellian strategy. When the whole system goes tits-up, politicians can just blame the evil insurance companies.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
kentm says
The ignore function is a beautiful thing.
Follow
Befriend (3)
12 threads
3,095 comments
kentm says
I disagree. The actions of anti-logging have created the problem. Logging interests create jobs that built many of the towns that are now in danger. I am for clean air, clean water, and AMerican manufactuing. The loggers know more about tending to trees than greeny freaks do. Just like farmers know more about farming than the greeny freaks that will not allow more retention dams (and their power) in California. Just like power suppliers know more than greeny freaks about Nuke power. THe list goes on .... man made climate chage is false, but greeny freaks keep beating the drum ... not using DDT to kill mosquitos kills people, thanks to greeny freaks.
Now, to stay on topic I should just say, I disagree with you. I disagree with you.
Follow
Befriend (5)
168 threads
5,070 comments
Bap33 says
The same intelligence he uses to form his totally unbiased beliefs is the same intelligence he used to get up to college level MAthematics when he was in the 9th grade, and in competing with all the other kids to get in to MIT at the age of 17, and he already had a PHD from harvard at the age of 23.
Geniuses like Bap, who proved through totally objective unbiased means their ability to do research and reason logically, competing with all of the best minds in the U.S. and winning, should not be argued with.
Follow
Befriend (5)
168 threads
5,070 comments
It should be obvious that man needs no protection from himself. If you just leave men to their own devices, they will take care of their bodies, their planet and each other. No way will they ever do harm to others in the interest of providing for themselves and their families. That's just not part of human nature. And with 7 billion people on the planet, all looking out for the best interest of the environment, it's pretty fucked up to think that the government need to involve itself in that. The government can only get in the way.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
That's why all ideologies based on the idea that "humans are basically good" are doomed to fail. Often with body counts.