patrick.net

CaptainShuddup says

Yeah didn't he put a man on the Moon? The only President in history to do so. He chose to do that and the other things, not because they were easy but because he wanted to one up the Libs

Nixon inherited a policy, which he continued to implement, for putting a man on the moon. It was in the final stages by then. He did the correct thing, and continued to pursue the goal. He did not do it to one up the Libs.

ok, lets use your motor bike example. I am not for helmet laws. The push for helmet laws wasto cut the losses from saving riders that have no insurance, or supporting the families they leave behind. Same with seat belts. Anyways, I do not agree with an auto-pay system for doctors and providers, so if there were no such system, then there is no public loss for a hurt or dead bike rider, so there is no need to have a helmet law. If a guy wants to ride with no helmet, and he crashes, the outcome of the events are what I be call "life". The nanny staters want to control choice. Riding a bike is dangerous. Going to the doctor is expensive. Forcing the public to pay for the heakth care of an idiot willing to ride a bike is communism/socialism/liberalism. Passing a law to put helmets on riders is nanny stater mastrubation. Why? Because the act of riding is still dangerous and can not be made perfectly safe (as is life), the doctor bills and family support is sill passed on to the general public (welfare) so the docs are still on auto-pay, and only the non-riding geeks "feel better" by having forced bikers to do what makes nanny staters feel better.

So, in that example, the act of riding a scoot is the same as living in the thick timber land. It can not be made perfectly safe. You say you wear all of the gladiator equipment to aide in survival. Well, that will only aide in a gentle slide, as you know. So, that is like the local fire department putting out a trashcan fire. If you get T-boned in an intersection, you are dead, but the helmet will let them find your head easier. Getting T-bone on a bike by a Buixk is what a wild fire in timber land is like. A helmet and some chaps just don't make the difference. Adding enough fire and police to save a town in a timber fire would be like adding roll-bars and steel plates to you motor bike (yes, nanny staters may wanna do just that next). If your bike is built like a Cup car, well then it may take the T-bone hit .. but, it is no longer a bike. If a city based first response group is able to fight a timber fire, it is no longer a local level response squad. The numbers would be too great to support. A bike wrapped in rollbars and steel would not work well either.

Let me try to wrap this up.
What you are suggesting is that the bike should carry all the rollbars and steel, because it makes you safer for the T-bone.
What the EPA did was remove all stoplights at the intersections ans mandate the Buicks never have to stop.
What the local gov did was hope for no Buicks now that intersections have no lights.
What I am suggesting is put the stop lights back in at the intersection, and everyone ride a bike dressed as they please. If you get hit, your get hit. If the doc dont get paid, he dont get paid. If your wife and kids have to ask the church for food, so be it. But, your choice to ride should only require that you follow the rules of the road, because what you are doing can not be made safe. Same for living in timber land ... or living in general. If enough tres are removed from the area to make it fire safe, it is no longer a timber area. If enough people are on staff to respond to the "maybe" fire, then the entire town will be police and fire. The answer is to limit the fuel available to the fire. And that limit was reduced by the actions of EPA/greeny freaks. Do you deny that? or do you just not agree because it does not fit your political view?

marcus says

Bap33 says

The EPA/green freak mandated limited foresting makes for huge forest fires and expensive wood.

Can you show me some valid analysis baking this up ? You know, facts and what not from a half way reliable source ? Glenn Beck doesn't count.

It sound an awful lot like right wing make believe: "hey, like I'm saying it so therefore it's true. AS soon as I say it a few more times, it will be even more true."

are you honestly suggesting that you dont know about the facts behind my statement? Or, is it a test to see if I know how to google 30 year old news items? I just want to see you honestly state that you have no idea what I am talking about before I post all the dang stuff. (ofcourse that will just start some other discussion about "sources"! lol)

Bap33 says

ok, lets use your motor bike example. I am not for helmet laws. The push for helmet laws wasto cut the losses from saving riders that have no insurance, or supporting the families they leave behind. Same with seat belts. Anyways, I do not agree with an auto-pay system for doctors and providers, so if there were no such system, then there is no public loss for a hurt or dead bike rider, so there is no need to have a helmet law.

That is some pretty confused thinking if I ever saw it. If the people who wish to ride without helmets and crash would simply shut up and die like men then ok. But they don't, they survive, they get treated, and they drive up my costs instead of paying for the extra costs of their additional injuries out of their pockets. So bap, you are saying that if you crash and get serious head injuries you are going to say, no don't bill my insurance company for the treatment I will pay out of pocket because I chose exert my right to freedom so I will accept my responsibility to pay for the consequences. Right. In Kentucky there is a pig that can whistle too.

That's the problem. All the people like bap who want freedom to be irresponsible, but cry like babies for someone to bail them out when they screw up. That seems to be the entire basis of the conservative movement today. Freedom without personal responsibility. Government services with no taxes. Privatized profits, socialized losses. War without cost. Is it a baby boomer thing that will go away some day or a permanent change in American society?

Bap33 says

Or, is it a test

In other words, you concede that it's made up hogwash. Thanks.

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.

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

thomas.wong1986 says

Even my local city/county firehouse ISNT equipped to handle a forest fires. We dont have fleets of air tankers, team of firefighter or support crew or a air strip ready to dump water...

Dang! That means we need to gut the federal government for all of it's out-of-control spending.

marcus says

It sound an awful lot like right wing make believe: "hey, like I'm saying it so therefore it's true. AS soon as I say it a few more times, it will be even more true."

Can we get marcus some kind of award or something? I haven't heard anything that good since Nomograph.

jjmcdonald says

Conservatives are for limited government, not NO government. We support fire fighting, police, etc. as these are proper institutions of government (we might argue about the level of pensions, etc. but not if the institutions should be public or private). A proper role of government is: administering justice, protecting life and property. For example, we want justice to be sure and a little slow and without a profit motive -- thus government is the proper institution. Conservatives also have no problem with short term assistance, what we have is a problem with dependency. Your example is perfect ... support after a wild fire, hurricane, etc. is good. However, support that breeds generational dependency as many of our HUD policies have is bad. Cheers

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.

bob2356 says

All the people like bap who want freedom to be irresponsible, but cry like babies for someone to bail them out when they screw up. That seems to be the entire basis of the conservative movement today. Freedom without personal responsibility. Government services with no taxes. Privatized profits, socialized losses. War without cost.

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!

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.

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

jjmcdonald says

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.

Amen. "Too big to fail" = socialism

jjmcdonald says

This limit will eliminate any new insurance companies with innovative ideas from being formed as their profit cannot be higher than big established companies.

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.

that is what I was suggesting above with my "make insurance companies prevent fires" post. kinda.

wthrfrk80 says

Well, since when do insurance companies "innovate"?

They think of new ways to rip you off?

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

Bap33 says

don't try to limit your search to just EPA's actions.

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).

jjmcdonald says

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

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

marcus 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

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!

Alright TomWong, that's the last straw. That's just ridiculous far-right trolling.

Yes I've heard about "starve the beast." A totally insane strategy.

wthrfrk80 says

Alright TomWong, that's the last straw. That's just ridiculous far-right trolling.

So we have a price to pay!marcus 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

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!

thomas.wong1986 says

Even my local city/county firehouse ISNT equipped to handle a forest fires. We dont have fleets of air tankers, team of firefighter or support crew or a air strip ready to dump water...

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?

thomas.wong1986 says

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!

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.

thomas.wong1986 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!

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.

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

jjmcdonald says

Yes, insurance companies do care about cost control.

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.

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

kentm says

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?

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"?

jjmcdonald says

I've never had a problem with medical insurance not paying up.

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.

jjmcdonald says

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.

It sounds like a great Machiavellian strategy. When the whole system goes tits-up, politicians can just blame the evil insurance companies.

kentm says

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.

The ignore function is a beautiful thing.

kentm says

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.

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.

Bap33 says

Now, to stay on topic I should just say, I disagree with you. I disagree with you.

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.