Page 15 of 19 FirstFirst ... 5 13 14 15 16 17 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 375 of 460
  1. #351
    Vinyl Fundamentalist Forums Moderator poppachubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Analog Synagogue
    Posts
    4,363
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    More than likely, you believe that the tax burden here in the states is distributed similarly as it is in Canada. Right? Nothing could be further from the truth.
    rw
    Hey E-Stat, slow down. I was commenting on Canada and really could care less about the American tax burden. How about letting me answer your question (Right?) before you begin a rant. Maybe time to shut er down for the night! I made my point clear to you earlier, why are you shoving statistics down my throat? I was simply responding to my friend audionoob's thoughts. Man oh man...your stats almost look like a good case for socialism...hahahaha

  2. #352
    I put the Gee in Gear.... thekid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    VB VA
    Posts
    2,307
    Mudslinging aside....It looks like a version of it is going to move out of committee and to the Senate floor for a vote.

    An intersting factoid I heard the other day regarding this issue-So far over 350 million dollars has been spent by lobbyists regarding this legislation. Another factoid there are 6 lobbyists in DC for every member of Congress. So what affect do you think that has had over the final piece of legislation?

    People who bemoan about how their tax dollars are spent in Washington should also be questioning who is spending and why this much money has been spent by special interests on both sides of the issue. While what the government spends is somewhat related to the taxes we pay, don't kid yourself if you don't think the cost of lobbying is not also passed onto the consumer in some form.

  3. #353
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Posts
    9,025
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    Regardless of your comments, BMI has been proven to be a good overall indicator of health. If you think that healthy folks are penalized by BMI, then by all means provide your proof.

    *sigh*...Several articles proving my point:
    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/49991.php
    http://www.atypon-link.com/PNG/doi/p...87?cookieSet=1
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17691883
    http://www.spiked-online.com/index.p.../article/7181/
    http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/08/21/19571.aspx

    Safeway's application is in direct conflict with your assertion. As I have already demonstrated, your elite athlete example would NOT be penalized by their criteria. TtT claims he would be penalized, but has not given any proof. I seriously doubt than anyone who claims to be "lean" would have a BMI greater than 30. Like you, he will have to provide his proof in order to support his claim. I am 5' 6" and weigh 152 lbs. In order to exceed an index of 30, I would have to weigh more than 185 lbs! Are you kidding? BTW, I am a regular runner.

    rw
    I confess to being blindsided by the fact Safeway goes against the norm of categorizing 25-29.9 as overweight (even though I wasn't making my comment in reference to one employer's health insurance plan, but in general), but I could easily prove my point by taking another elite athlete...LaDainian Tomlinson...quit dodging the point.

  4. #354
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by 3LB
    I...do you have a link to that - I ask now cuz someone else will anyay
    Such is very easy to find at irs.gov. Search for statistics and you will find numerous spreadsheets.

    rw

  5. #355
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by poppachubby
    Hey E-Stat, slow down... Man oh man...your stats almost look like a good case for socialism...hahahaha
    Sorry if you aren't aware of the details before wading into the water. Good case? Well, now the gubmint wants to increase the dependency.

    rw

  6. #356
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by kexodusc
    *sigh*...Several articles proving my point:
    Sigh: Several refuting that point:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10511607

    http://cme.medscape.com/viewarticle/543559

    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/la...318-4/abstract

    Quote Originally Posted by kexodusc
    I confess to being blindsided by the fact Safeway goes against the norm of categorizing 25-29.9 as overweight...
    You were blindsided by making assumptions and not reading what I said.

    Quote Originally Posted by kexodusc
    but I could easily prove my point by taking another elite athlete...LaDainian Tomlinson...quit dodging the point.
    No one is saying that any single metric is going to be 100 accurate. Nevertheless, It remains a good indicator overall as evidenced by Safeway's success in holding down their health care costs. What fractional percentage of the population is represented by NFL running backs?

    rw

  7. #357
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    "Provide it via our tax dollars". More than likely, you believe that the tax burden here in the states is distributed similarly as it is in Canada. Right? Nothing could be further from the truth. According to 2007 data, 32% of Canadians contributed nothing to income taxes. How about in the US? The answer is 50%! So what is the contribution to the tax burden provided by the top 25% of Canadians? 80% Care to wager a guess on the figure for us in the states? 86% For those of us in the half (not the two thirds) who shoulder all the burden, the health care initiative means here's a way to add $900 Billlion dollars to our existing higher contribution to yours. Do you begin to understand the feeling of those who are already shouldering more of the load than you Canadians? It is very easy for the 50% of Americans who contribute NOTHING - Zilch - Nada - Zero income tax to say, now I want free healthcare to be provided by those who already support us. Do you understand?

    rw
    Interesting statistics.

    For a start, are the 50% of US citizens who don't pay tax all poor people? From what I hear the US is world-class when it comes to tax loopholes. Anyway, I really have no problem with the rich paying a disproportionate share of taxes -- even a hugely disporportionate share, in the time when a 1% of the population controls 90% of the wealth. I made the point sometime ago to the sadly conflicted Bobsticks, that the rich would not be rich if they lived on a desert island: they are rich because they have the rest of us to server/exploit, (choose your verb).

    Tax reform is one thing; healthcare policy another. Of course the latter has to be paid for, but it's illogical to say, "Our tax policy is bad, therefore our healthcare policy must, forever and always, be bad".

    On certain issues, (which might include healthcare), the middle class, (say families with income >$100 k.p.a) will have to decide do we want (1) that 60" 240 Hz LED TV, or (2) secure, quality healthcare for everyone. (Consider that the TV is made in China while the healthcare is provided by American workers.)

    But WTF? Come we have overall as good healthcare in Canada for about 65% of what it costs in the US? This is because in Canada, (as FA and others have tried to point out), we have decided that quality healthcare will be provided to everyone. That decision made, we've been free to seek the most effective and efficient means to deliver it -- and not without considerable success.

  8. #358
    3LB
    3LB is offline
    cunning linguist 3LB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    hiding out in treetops, shouting out rude names
    Posts
    1,737
    Quote Originally Posted by feanor
    Come we have overall as good healthcare in Canada for about 65% of what it costs in the US? This is because in Canada, (as FA and others have tried to point out), we have decided that quality healthcare will be provided to everyone. That decision made, we've been free to seek the most effective and efficient means to deliver it -- and not without considerable success.
    How do you react to the statement made by Thekid regarding the massive ever-present lobby in D.C.? Reading that doesn't make the rest of us feel any better. Its one of the reasons we don't trust our gov't.

    Its just as illogical to say that Healthcare is so important we must institute it right away no matter what burden it represents to an already over burdened populace. If the 50% E-stat mentioned is all poor, then they won't care about a national healthcare, cuz they already have one - welfare. Its there if a person needs it...they just gotta go get it.
    Repost this on your wall if you love Jesus.

  9. #359
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Posts
    9,025
    I don't have access to the 2nd link, but these didn't refute the point at all. They're silent on the criticisms in fact, though one does suggest using alternative measurements. Did you even read them? Just more blanket statements that BMI has positve correlation with causes of mortality. No duh...but it's not strong enough. Particularly a study that pulls data from 1979-85 - when the population was convincingly leaner. I wonder how they'd reconcile the increase in BMI in America from 1985 to now with the increase in life expectancy during the same period?

    No one is saying that any single metric is going to be 100 accurate. Nevertheless, It remains a good indicator overall as evidenced by Safeway's success in holding down their health care costs.
    The problem is there's potential for a reduction in costs generated from excluding what most would consider healthy people. Keep dropping the outliers one side and we skew the mean pretty fast.

    What fractional percentage of the population is represented by NFL running backs?
    Who cares? I pulled those names because people would recognize them. Step into any gym and you'll see dozens of weight trainers and amateur body builders that would fit this profile, not to mention the number of people on the edge of one of these arbitrary thresholds that could be penalized for having higher higher bone density, or the misrespresentation that seniors will experience.

    Look, it's a start in the right direction, but if it's just BMI and smoking, too many fit people are going to be excluded. I guess my standard of "good practice" is higher than yours in this case.

  10. #360
    Musicaholic Forums Moderator ForeverAutumn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    9,769
    Quote Originally Posted by 3LB
    How do you react to the statement made by Thekid regarding the massive ever-present lobby in D.C.? Reading that doesn't make the rest of us feel any better. Its one of the reasons we don't trust our gov't.
    Not trusting your gov't is nothing new. I don't trust ours either. There have been many scandals in the last few years, both federally and provincially, where tax payers money has been illegally spent. Read this if you're at all interested in the largest scandal involving the, then in power, Liberal Party. But the thing is, the Liberals lost the next and each subsequent election and they haven't been in power since. Democracy means that you get a vote, but then you have to live with the results whether you like/trust the gov't or not.

    But it doesn't change the fact that the right to healthcare has become something that Canadians value.

    I've been told by a friend's father, who is very politically astute and is now in his 80's, that Canadians were not happy about the institution of universal healthcare when it was first brought about back in the 60's. But it is now something that we can't imagine living without.

    It will be very intereting to see where the U.S. is on this issue in 10 years and, if public healthcare is brought in, how most people will feel about it then. Big changes are never easy, especially when you're dealing with a population the size of the United States on an issue as sensitive as people's health.

    Where's my time machine when we need it?

  11. #361
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127
    Quote Originally Posted by 3LB
    How do you react to the statement made by Thekid regarding the massive ever-present lobby in D.C.? Reading that doesn't make the rest of us feel any better. Its one of the reasons we don't trust our gov't.
    Since you ask, massive lobbying, unrestricted campaign contributions, and advertising by interest groups undermine democracy to a huge extent. It's not a problem unique to the US, but the US congress (and courts) has been more than typically resistant to doing anything about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by 3LB
    Its just as illogical to say that Healthcare is so important we must institute it right away no matter what burden it represents to an already over burdened populace. If the 50% E-stat mentioned is all poor, then they won't care about a national healthcare, cuz they already have one - welfare. Its there if a person needs it...they just gotta go get it.
    Well, as I understand the 50% are not all poor. I don't know much about Medicaid but I do hear a lot about people who, having had no preventive care or treatment for chronic conditions, turn up in a bad state emergency rooms, the most expensive form of treatment.

    Apparently, it's one of those US myths that the problem is mainly one affecting the poor. In fact, exclusion for preexisting condition, remission of converage, and abuse claims adjudication by insurance companies have ensure that the problem affects the middle class too, especailly the unwell, self-employed, and employees of small employers.

  12. #362
    3LB
    3LB is offline
    cunning linguist 3LB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    hiding out in treetops, shouting out rude names
    Posts
    1,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    Apparently, it's one of those US myths that the problem is mainly one affecting the poor.
    I agree. The working middle class will be the most effected by healthcare - its the working middle class that pays all the bills in our country.

    In fact, exclusion for preexisting condition, remission of converage, and abuse claims adjudication by insurance companies have ensure that the problem affects the middle class too, especailly the unwell, self-employed, and employees of small employers.
    this is a problem among people who are insured privately as well...will handing healthcare over to a gov't that's so swayed by big business solve the problem?
    Repost this on your wall if you love Jesus.

  13. #363
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127
    Quote Originally Posted by 3LB
    ...this is a problem among people who are insured privately as well...will handing healthcare over to a gov't that's so swayed by big business solve the problem?
    Good question! So which is better, to have healthcare run by:
    • Government swayed by big business, or
    • Big business directly, motivated as it is soley by profit.
    You have to have a really unbounded confidence in capitalism and the market economy to accept the latter at face value; (many do, it seems).

  14. #364
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by kexodusc
    No duh...but it's not strong enough.
    Strong enough for exactly what?

    Quote Originally Posted by kexodusc
    The problem is there's potential for a reduction in costs generated from excluding what most would consider healthy people. Keep dropping the outliers one side and we skew the mean pretty fast.
    No one in the Safeway organization was dropped. They paid $318 more per year than the others.

    Quote Originally Posted by kexodusc
    I guess my standard of "good practice" is higher than yours in this case.
    The secret to their success is that they are incenting people to be healthy without TtT's unfounded fear of requiring access to medical records.

    rw

  15. #365
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    For a start, are the 50% of US citizens who don't pay tax all poor people?
    No. Neither for the US nor Canada.

    rw

  16. #366
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    No. Neither for the US nor Canada.

    rw
    True, though the situation is a bit worse in the US ipso facto.

    But up here in the GWN we decided to go ahead with healthcare despite an imperfect tax policy. The debate still goes on up here of course; there will never be an end to it.

    The government of Alberta is proposing heathcare premiums in the province; (they had been abolished a few years ago when oil revenues were higher). Obviously they could just raise other taxes but the Alberta government is a right-wing government so they like the "user pay" concept -- of course lots of poor people, who can't be denied coverage, will be excused from paying premiums because they just can't afford them.

    In any case polls show that 90% of Albertans apparently would rather pay the premiums than see heathcare compromised.

  17. #367
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by 3LB
    How do you react to the statement made by Thekid regarding the massive ever-present lobby in D.C.? Reading that doesn't make the rest of us feel any better. Its one of the reasons we don't trust our gov't.
    This answer is easy...it is up to us. We have been the vacant piece that tips the balance of influence. While we have made Walmart rich, the lobby is doing their job replacing our influence with their constituents. When the American public begins to act more like the French, our politicians will listen to us. However, as long as we continue to sit and complain about the situation without doing nothing, is as long as we have to deal with being second instead of first to the punch.

    Its just as illogical to say that Healthcare is so important we must institute it right away no matter what burden it represents to an already over burdened populace. If the 50% E-stat mentioned is all poor, then they won't care about a national healthcare, cuz they already have one - welfare. Its there if a person needs it...they just gotta go get it.
    We have to institute it right now if we A) expect job growth and B) control our budget deficit. As long as employers face yearly higher premiums, they are not going to hire full time workers which drive our economy. They ship jobs overseas because of the reduced overhead like health insurance costs. Paying living wages to Americans has never been a problem, its the overall benefits package that is so costly. If corporations were not stuck with rising health care costs, they would invest in more jobs in this country.

    Welfare does not provide health benefits, so that is not the answer for the poor. Their health care involves the most expensive process in the book, that would be the emergency room, because they cannot be turned away whether insured or not. This drives up costs for everyone, including the middle class and poor. You cannot just go out and get Medicaid, you have to qualify for it. Illegals can get it for their children that are born here, but it does not cover any illegal adult. They go to the emergency room, and that has to be stopped somehow.

    This healthcare issue is very complex. The republicans balk at giving illegals any services, but having an illegal with TB, H1N1, or any other communicable disease running around infecting large swaths of people is not a desirable alternative. They want it budget neutral, but you have to cut waste in order to fund it, and Medicaid is extremely wasteful. Any attempts to cut waste are met with a disingenuous howl in the name of protecting granny. If we don't get healthcare cost under control, jobs are going to continue to be outsourced to country's with a cheaper labor supply. This affects long term economic growth, as the fundamental base of full employment will rise from 4-5% to closer to 7-8%. A persistently high employment rate will be a social problem this country does not need, and cannot bare.

    The house and the senate really needs to keep pace with the changes that are immediately needed. They should not complain of having too much on the plate, as handling these issues are what they are getting paid for. I personally think that if we were not in two wars which are draining precious resources away from the American public's needs, these issues would be much easier to handle.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  18. #368
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by 3LB
    I agree. The working middle class will be the most effected by healthcare - its the working middle class that pays all the bills in our country.

    this is a problem among people who are insured privately as well...will handing healthcare over to a gov't that's so swayed by big business solve the problem?
    Have you heard anyone complaining about Medicare? I have not. What I am hearing is seniors screaming keep the government out of it(such irony). The government must be doing something right if folks on Medicaid want to keep things just the way they are. Now one could argue that Medicaid is trouble financially, but I would counter get rid of the waste within the system, and use the system as a bargaining tool with the pharmaceutical companies (something they gave away). The CBO states that just doing those two things could save the system close to 500-600 billion. This would almost fund the entire Bacus bill, and with competition from the public option contain future costs for everyone. Walmart uses its enormous size to bargain with the Pharmaceutical companies which is why they can charge $4 dollars for a 30 day supply of generic drugs. We need more effective generic drugs on the market, and that can be accomplished by reducing the time the pharma's have on patents.

    The fact that our government is doing anything on healthcare is not thrilling the health insurance companies one bit. When our voices drown out the insurance lobby, they will pay attention. As long as WE sit on the sidelines complaining, it is business as usual.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  19. #369
    nightflier
    Guest

    BMI, Canada, Politics, and all that Jazz....

    Estat,

    I've always valued your opinion, so don't take this the wrong way, but using BMI is certainly discriminatory for the simple fact that a company cannot draw a line at a certain number and be fair about it. Sooner or later they will get sued and loose. Just wait for the headline where a woman who just had a baby, or a poor chap in with a debilitating illness, has their premiums jacked because they fall outside the arbitrary "limits" set by Safeway.

    02audionoob,

    Sorry to disagree with your Texan perspective, but you're a bit off. There are a number of people who have PM'd me to let me know that they agree with a more progressive point of view on many of these threads, but don't contribute to the discussion because of how belligerent people are behaving. Yes, lively discussion helps this site, but some comments are just plain injurious and no longer serve the purpose of the discussion. I'll admit that I've been sucked into more than one debate and said some things I'm not too proud of, but I've never done so in anger and repressive bitterness like the kinds of comments that come from the far-right.

    The fact is, Markw's point of view is the minority point of view, both here and throughout the country. For your information: Dubya was never elected, not even once - he cheated the first time, and he most certainly cheated the second time. As a matter of fact McCain cheated a bunch too, but the sentiment was so overwhelmingly against the Republicans that even with cheating, they still couldn't steal a 3rd election. Some other details: GM & Dodge truck sales are way down, especially compared to Honda and Toyota cars, the churches are struggling to get their congregations to stay and pay tithes, and if you're wondering, MarkW's biggest fan on the political front is Pixelthis. I don't suppose you'd be OK in that company.

    MarkW,

    Your comments against FA are both ignorant and xenophobic (I know, big word, might want to look it up). I can poke fun at Canadians and Australians too, but your comments are laced with anger and bitterness that go beyond the pale (as poppachubby correctly pointed out). You should probably ask yourself if your message isn't diluted by the way you put people off. If you really wanted to make a point and win converts, you might want to try and find some common ground first.

    And what is this unfounded obsession with subs & icebreakers? Fact is, Canada has been a welcome buffer from Soviet ICBMs and we're pretty friggin glad they have been. The only reason the US doesn't want Russians drilling for Oil isn't because they care that much about Canadians' right to it, but rather because they want it for themselves. Canada is well aware of that, BTW. The US as the world's protector? Aside from the arrogance of the statement, I ask: From what? The cold war is over, in case you haven't noticed. Terrorism? Most people around the world consider the US the biggest instigator of terrorism. We built up Al-Qaeda and Osama was on our payroll, remember? I suggest you pick up a copy of The Power of Nightmares (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightmares) and brush up on your history a bit.

    ***************************

    Back to the topic,

    While I still don't have much faith in our politicians delivering anything meaningful, I will change my skepticism of the future of the bill. If/when the bill does pass, we will likely enter a long period of adjustment and amendments to it, and I hope that this will be for the better of it. Canada's system went through the same changes, as Feanor and FA have pointed out. In time, this bill could become much better. If we also take into account that conservatives who oppose this bill have a very short-termed perspective on anything (I suppose that goes with the territory), they will, one can only hope, loose interest in it after it is passed, and move on to more galvanizing, politically-charged topics that will bring them more immediate self-serving rewards. I certainly don''t expect them to read the bill - after all, they never read the Pariot Act either, and they pushed that like gang-busters, LOL.

    So if it passes, then it seems to me a pretty simple equation: yes our taxes will go up, but our insurance premiums will go down by a wider margin so the vast majority of the people will have less cost out of pocket. Well, it will benefit pretty much everyone except the inflated portfolios of the CEOs of big pharma, insurance, and the HMOs. That they are lighting unrelated powderkegs like the ubiquitous "socialist threat" is perhaps understandable, but so last century, no?

    What is so astounding is the vehement opposition from lower and middle class people who will likely benefit from it all. Socialist? Pluuueeeze, the public option will offer competition to the private sector. Competition is a Republican standard, no? So I guess we're back to Smokey's original question: why all the anger, mud-slinging, and bitterness? The only people who have any reason to complain can afford not to, really. Anyone who's middle or lower class and opposes it, is either desperately hanging onto a single small issue that may not even affect them in the end, or just plainly not the sharpest tool in the ol' shed.

  20. #370
    Musicaholic Forums Moderator ForeverAutumn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    9,769
    Quote Originally Posted by ForeverAutumn
    Cloth Ears,
    I am enjoying your contributions to this thread. Your points are well made and well thought out. You seem to be able to stick to the facts and avoid some of the tangents that others on this board have a hard time avoiding. You seem like an intelligent man (I am assuming the 'man' part since I can't see you).

    Welcome to AR. I hope you stick around.

    Cheers from Canada!
    FA.
    Got an anonymous reddie for this one. Evidently I'm "piling it on". Yep, that's me. I'm just a big kiss-ass. LOL.

  21. #371
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by nightflier
    I've always valued your opinion, so don't take this the wrong way, but using BMI is certainly discriminatory for the simple fact that a company cannot draw a line at a certain number and be fair about it. Sooner or later they will get sued and loose.
    Thanks for the comments. First of all, this is not my plan so I don't take affront to anyone disagreeing with the Safeway plan. I will point out, however, when someone mis-characterizes what it is. Along with the Mayo Clinic, I was made aware of their plan by President Obama as being a progressive way to encourage folks to a better lifestyle.

    Quote Originally Posted by nightflier
    Just wait for the headline where a woman who just had a baby, or a poor chap in with a debilitating illness, has their premiums jacked because they fall outside the arbitrary "limits" set by Safeway.
    Perhaps you are not aware there are 22,000 employees who have been in this program for over three years. Surely your scenario has already occurred many times over.

    rw

  22. #372
    I put the Gee in Gear.... thekid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    VB VA
    Posts
    2,307
    Quote Originally Posted by nightflier
    What is so astounding is the vehement opposition from lower and middle class people who will likely benefit from it all. Socialist? Pluuueeeze, the public option will offer competition to the private sector. Competition is a Republican standard, no? So I guess we're back to Smokey's original question: why all the anger, mud-slinging, and bitterness? The only people who have any reason to complain can afford not to, really. Anyone who's middle or lower class and opposes it, is either desperately hanging onto a single small issue that may not even affect them in the end, or just plainly not the sharpest tool in the ol' shed.
    Night

    You seem like an intelligent person so I guess I am surprised that you are "astounded" by the way this issue has played out. Never underestimate the power of politicians, lobbyists and the media to shape the opinion of people even when it goes against their best interests. In some respects this was what this country was founded on when you consider the demographics of the Founding Fathers versus the average colonist at the time. (Please note-this is not an attack on the Founding Fathers. Just read your history and some of the deliberations that went on during the formative years of the country) The Civil War probably being the most tragic example of this; A wealthy minority convinced a mostly poor uneducated majority to go war to ostensible to fight for "States Rights" and "Freedom" when in fact the root cause was to basically maintain or improve the economic status of the wealthy.

    The President lost control of this issue when he gave up ownership of it out of fear of not repeating the mistakes of the Clinton administration. When you no longer control the message then the monied interests (on both sides of the issue) begin to shape the issue and we end up with the fairly weak piece of legislation that it looks like we will get. The Dems and the GOP will then use the results as a means of securing additional resources for their respective election campaigns which in the end was their primary goal in the first place. As someone mentioned about Canada the reason they have Universal Healthcare is because the politicians on both sides agreed it was the right thing to do. Sadly that is not the case here where instead the inertia of our election/money cycle killed what is sorely needed because our current health care system hurts us when competing in the global marketplace among other things. Rather than coming at this issue as an moral and economic imperative we have treated it no differently than any other piece of legislation that has come up in the last 35 years.
    Last edited by thekid; 10-08-2009 at 06:53 PM.

  23. #373
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by thekid
    Night

    You seem like an intelligent person so I guess I am surprised that you are "astounded" by the way this issue has played out. Never underestimate the power of politicians, lobbyists and the media to shape the opinion of people even when it goes against their best interests. In some respects this was what this country was founded one when you consider the demographics of the Founding Fathers versus the average colonist at the time. (Please note-this is not an attack on the Founding Fathers. Just read your history and some of the deliberations that went on during the formative years of the country) The Civil War probably being the most tragic example of this; A wealthy minority convinced a mostly poor uneducated majority to go war to ostensible to fight for "States Rights" and "Freedom" when in fact the root cause was to basically maintain or improve the economic status of the wealthy.

    The President lost control of this issue when he gave up ownership of it out of fear of not repeating the mistakes of the Clinton administration. When you no longer control the message then the monied interests (on both sides of the issue) begin to shape the issue and we end up with the fairly weak piece of legislation that it looks like we will get. The Dems and the GOP will then use the results as a means of securing additional resources for their respective election campaigns which in the end was their primary goal in the first place. As someone mentioned about Canada the reason they have Universal Healthcare is because the politicians on both sides agreed it was the right thing to do. Sadly that is not the case here where instead the inertia of our election/money cycle killed what is sorely needed because our current health care system hurts us when competing in the global marketplace among other things. Rather than coming at this issue as an moral and economic imperative we have treated it no differently than any other piece of legislation that has come up in the last 35 years.
    Kid,
    I just wanted to inform you that our President has not lost anything. After his major healthcare speech, and the media blitz following it, his numbers on this issue have risen 8-10 points depending on the poll. The pundits cite that his TAKING ownership of this issue has been key.

    Based on what I have read as of today, the momentum on the public option is swinging back his and the Democrats way. With so many respected former GOP house and senate members imploring the republicans in congress and the senate to get with the program, the pressure is now on them to get with the process and stop hampering it. Bob Dole is the latest voice to speak out on this. It is not over till the lady with the high BMI sings the finale.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  24. #374
    Retro Modernist 02audionoob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    2,908
    Quote Originally Posted by ForeverAutumn
    Got an anonymous reddie for this one..
    Apologies for the lack of signature.

  25. #375
    I put the Gee in Gear.... thekid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    VB VA
    Posts
    2,307
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Kid,
    I just wanted to inform you that our President has not lost anything. After his major healthcare speech, and the media blitz following it, his numbers on this issue have risen 8-10 points depending on the poll. The pundits cite that his TAKING ownership of this issue has been key.

    Based on what I have read as of today, the momentum on the public option is swinging back his and the Democrats way. With so many respected former GOP house and senate members imploring the republicans in congress and the senate to get with the program, the pressure is now on them to get with the process and stop hampering it. Bob Dole is the latest voice to speak out on this. It is not over till the lady with the high BMI sings the finale.
    I hope you are right but I'd like to see a more forceful approach coming from the White House regarding the public option and cost containment initiatives. A little bump today because the numbers released today show the proposed Seanate bill coming in $80 million below the initial projections.

    As you can tell I am generally pessimistic about our political process but who knows if this process somehow ends up bringing some of the groups you mention together then maybe the inertia I complained about earlier can be broken......

    After all was'nt that the reason so many went to the polls last November

Page 15 of 19 FirstFirst ... 5 13 14 15 16 17 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •