NorthSideSox72

This sort of thing makes me laugh, because it really exposes the lack of understanding of many on both sides of the issue. On the one hand, you have "environmentalists" (many who, in my view, really don't understand what that means), who think that by buying a hybrid, that means the improvement in lowering emissions and fuel usage is pure "profit" in terms of lowering environmental impact. This is delusional. Any new technology of this sort will always result in some number of unintended (or even intended) negative consequence (cost), in exchange for the payoff. The need for the batteries in these things to have certain metals in them means more mining of those substances, higher demand, and rising prices in them. Just the natural consequence. But on the other hand, you have the people who seem adamantly against any sort of progress towards improving the environment, that they enjoy pointing gleefully at any sort of downfall in the attempts. So, they see this consequence, and say "see, it doesn't work!!!" Which of course is absurd. Of course it works, but there is an offset. Heck, even solar energy will probably be shown later to have some sort of negative consequence. What the eeyores fail to acknowledge though, is the same thing the enviro-whackos fail to acknowledge - that there are two sides to the equation. There are gains, but the gains have costs. And its not a liner function either, its curved - things will get better as the technology matures, and even if you just "break even" in terms of environmental consequence, you are making good ground towards doing better. Its taking a short term bad for the larger long term good. Also throw into this an X factor in properly evaluating the impact - that increased mining and metal costs, when compared to lowering emissions and fuel usage, is not a true apples-to-apples comparison. So, there will always be subjectivity. To me, the increased mining for certain metals is a very small price to pay for the lowering of oil use and emissions, because the overall impact of the positives on the lives of most Americans is far greater than slightly more expensive nickel and a couple extra holes in the ground. That, however, is an opinion. So go wild, all you wing nuts - here is your ammo for lobbing nonsense across the aisle. Sure would be nice if we could see the other side from there.

Thanks for the input, guys. I had Murphy's last night - cheeseburger and a fat tire. Very good. Tonight, I am going to get some Monical's Pizza for dinner, then head back to Chi-town.

OK so, here I sit in scenic Champaign, IL, on a biz trip. I need to find a place to scrounge lunch and dinner tomorrow, near campus. I know there are a lot of U of I folks here, so... Any recommendations?

Kap, you think guys like J Wright weren't brought up ad nauseum? Come on, you must be just doing this for fun now.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 03:18 PM) Old ass, you're acting like that was 30 years ago or something. s***, I was only a kid during Carter anyway, so my "memory" is more from study in college or after, not from 30 years ago. And aren't you older than I am, Older Ass?

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 07:30 PM) So? If insurance is mandated their employer needs to either pay an extra fee to enable the government to monitor the guest workers' health care coverage or the employer pays for the coverage. A lot of visa workers (such as those on L1 visas) are in and out of the country for months at a time and it would be costly for the government to set up new systems to make sure that when they are here they have health insurance. Otherwise we are back to paying for uninsured emergency room visits. Back to square one with them. Now, if you are advocating visa workers should qualify for 'extreme economic hardship free health care', that makes no sense. If they are making that little their employer is violating visa laws. I think this should depend on the visa. Someone here on vacation, aka a tourist visa, probably should not be required to get insurance, as its just not practical. You at least need to provide emergency medical care to them. BUT, they COULD buy travel insurance. Sort of a grey area. As for work visas that are beyond the short one-month types, you should probably require the sponsoring employer to state a guarantee that the person on visa has some sort of health insurance meeting basic standards. You can leave it up to the employer as to how they make it happen.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 03:33 PM) By being Federally liscensed can they now compete across state lines and have those restrictions removed? What about tort reform? Your basic structure looks interesting, I'll give you that. You would also need to create some sort of standard for the electronic files, otherwise you will have systems that can't talk with each other, as we have now. When I said nationally licensed, yes, I meant they could compete across state lines. And yes, standardized file system or at least message protocols and file layouts, that sort of thing. And you are right, I forgot about tort reform. Add to the list that we need to look at ways to minimize, but I am not yet convinced of the best method. I leave that up for debate, but simply say that something done to filter out more legal B.S. is good, and minimizing levels of damages outside of the recouping of actual financial losses is appropriate.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 02:35 PM) No, car insurance is not required unless you want to drive. I don't HAVE to drive, so I don't HAVE to have car insurance. What you are proposing is that even if I don't want health insurance, I have to buy it...that's like saying even though you don't drive you have to have car insurance... I've heard this being discussed by constitution lawyers, and from what I've heard, it's not legal. I haven't read up enough to know one way or the other, but even I have to say, it's iffy sounding. Interesting. I looked over my plan again, and it still flies without the out and out requirement for insurance. And I've seen states require health coverage for minors in some fashion, so I think that can still fly, in some way.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 02:33 PM) I'm not really convinced it is, but that is neither here nor there. Not convinced that what is not what?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 02:31 PM) I'll have to read the rest of your post more carefully, because it sounds like something we can actually begin to agree on, but to your above point, I'm not sure that's constitutionally legal. Car insurance is required. Is that constitutionally legal? Health care, like driving, is a legal privilege, not a legal right.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 02:21 PM) My point is not his views, it is about a liberal press running a story that is 20 years old to try to propel a Democrat to victory. This guy has been in office for 18 years, and this has never come up, but now it is a story. How is this any different than the scrutiny we see of every candidate, usually more so as they move up in importance? Seems to me it happens all over.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 02:16 PM) Believe it or not, that's somewhat of a legacy of the Carter administration. It was Carter that presided over requests to restart the arms race with the USSR after their invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 and 1980. As I understand it, Congress was doing that more or less without Carter's support. Maybe I am misremembering.

OK, here goes. Here it is, in all its glory, the NSS health care plan. This is the framework for what I'd like to see, eventually, though I am fairly certain it won't happen for any number of reasons (mostly political)... --Government should not be running any health care plans, at all. --Employers should not be the ones to provide health coverage either. --Health insurance should be a private market product, just like car insurance. --Health insurance should be REQUIRED for all US citizens and residents. --Health insurance providers would continue offering various plans, but to the public generally. --Health insurance plans need to reflect cost of care - in other words, you shouldn't be paying $25 for any doctor visit. You should be paying $20 for tier 3 doctors, $30 for tier 2, $50 for tier 1, etc. - to reflect actual cost AND allow for real competition to occur (prescriptions are going this way now anyway). Insurance plans should still have a personal spending cap, under some plans. (this one is probably the hardest to make work) --Those who cannot afford regular insurance would need to prove why (income, loss of job, etc.) in some fashion, and then be eligible for a pool, which is covered by all insurance providers on a persons-parallel-with-market-share model (like the utilities do with infrastucture costs in deregulating). The pool costs should be supplemented by the federal government to lower cost, but the plans available should essentially be low-end plans that are truly only a safety net, providing just protection from huge costs (kind of like we made the welfare system less appealing in the Clinton years). --Tax incentives should be large to encourage not-for-profits in all areas of health care - insurance, hospitals, etc. Having NFP's present will help keep overall costs down in the sector. --Insurance providers need to be federally licensed, not state, and be required to clearly publish the number of providers in their systems in each region/city/state/whatever, so that people can make educated decisions about making their plans. --All insurance providers required to provide emergency care at ANY licensed facility in the country at any time, at their given rates, period. --No pre-existing condition restrictions allowed under any plan. --HSA rules need to change to NOT have a use it or lose it policy, and additionally, allow for all health claims to go through that account and be eligible for being non-taxable dollars. --All medical providers required to pre-clear all tests and procedures performed (except in situ for emergency medical), and show actual cost to the patient before performing. --All medical records need to be housed in a database, medical ID cards issued, no more forms and s*** that just take time and cost needless money. --All EMS providers and emergency rooms need to handle emergency medicine for anyone coming in the door - the rest can be sorted out when the person is stable (this is mostly the case anyway, but not always) --No person in the country illegally should be provided insurance, under penalty of fines. If hospitals want to treat patients not properly ID'd, that is their risk to take (emergency med may need to be an exception here). --If any minor ( ETA: --College students currently in school full time should be eligible for government-supported access to the pool plan. ----- That's what I have for now. Not perfect to be sure, and probably not possible, but the best thing I can come up with.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 02:06 PM) After a couple years cooling off, I think Reagan provided more detente to the Soviets than nearly any other President since Roosevelt. I'd say, sort of. He was providing detente at the higher levels, but doing everything possible to crumble their infrastructure under the hood.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:52 PM) Then why don't companies offer to pay a zillion dollars an hour? Let's not pretend there aren't competive factors at work here. There are also tons of shareholder and stock price pressures that go on here. All it takes is one company to stop, and pretty much an entire industry stops, or at least that has been the argument for generations about why work gets oursourced outside of the United States. That's kind of my point - companies still have to compete for good employees, so there is always a balancing act. You cannot just say "its a cost, we'll drop it", all the way down.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:51 PM) Um, if they could, they would. I don't want less salary and more benefits...you obvious do, but I do not. I want my money. I'd rather have money too - but companies are finding that the mroe benefits less salary model saves them money, due to preceived benefit value that is above the actual cost, as well as the fact that so many employees use only some of those benefits (where as they would take ALL the cash). My wife works as more or less a business psychologist for a large company HR department.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:47 PM) Ha. You know as well as I do if companies feel it will boost their bottom lines and/or stock prices, they will dump coverage in a heartbeat. Once the government plan comes in and starts being cheaper and starts closing up insurance companies, they will drop coverage for employees faster than they drop employees in a recession. At the end of the day, it is a cost to the company. If they can get rid of it, they will. First, if this was true, then companies would provide no benefits and pay minimum wage for all jobs. Obviously that is not the case, so also obviously, there is clearly something different going on here. It is simply part of the benefits package. And as time has gone on, companies are in fact offering MORE benefits (and less salary) than they had previously. And as I said earlier, the only time they will drop coverage is in truly dire circumstances, which is no different (or little different) than it is today. By the way, here is something to throw out there... IMO, the ultimate solution to this whole problem is not government-provided healthcare, nor is it employee-provided health care. Chew on that for a minute.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:43 PM) There is absolutely no mechanism to deny coverage to illegal aliens in the bill. By proxy, they're then covered. I posted a congressional review report that agrees with this, mr genuis posted another article, and yet, all I see is you're wrong you're wrong you're wrong. Holy s***, we gave you interpretations that say (CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW!!) illegals are covered in this bill. What the hell more do you want? Then you just outright dismiss it because "it's a talking point so it must be false". You posted a review article from a PR newswire on some site I've never seen, saying that one particular part of the bill doesn't exempt them. Assuming the source is any good (and this is not a news item by the way, its a PR wire that anyone can write to), then the only fact present is that the NO ONE is being specifically kept out of that item specifically. But the bill also states, as has shown here, that no coverage will be extended to illegals. Do you really want them to put "EXCEPT ILLEGALS" after each sentence? Again, it has nothing to do with who is parroting it. It has everything to do with what is actually in there. There is language, shown here, that says NO ILLEGALS, and you guys are complaining because some other part of the bill doesn't reiterate that exemption.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:40 PM) Bingo. And its the foundation for my intense dislike of the American political right. Its not the whole right, and its not the right that I used to vote for. Its the new one - the fear-driven social agenda chasers. And heck, I'd even be willing to debate things with anyone, if they can provide some sort of factual evidence of their fears. But what we're seeing here about illegals is akin to the fears that Bush was going to suspend the 2008 elections. Completely unfounded in anything resembling fact.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:38 PM) I think the point is that people will be forced to switch to it because Employers will quit offering it as an option, just like they have quit offering pensions after social security came around. Interesting analogy, since the combination of 401k's and social security are much better for everyone involved than pensions. The only way employers start begging off insurance offerings in any great numbers are if: --They are deep financial trouble (in which case they might do that anyway) --The government plan somehow becomes a truly better alternative, which I find doubtful --Unemployment gets to some ridiculous number like 20% and employees lose all leverage

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:34 PM) Ok, the GOP is using it as a talking point, so it MUST NOT be true. End of story. Has zero to do with it. The fact that a party is using it as a talking point is unrelated to whether or not its true. What DOES tell me its untrue is that its NOT IN THE BILL, or at least any part of it I've seen, or has been posted here. If someone can show me something other this - something that runs counter to the bill portions shown here to specifically EXEMPT illegals - then I will start worrying about it. This is what StrangeSox was getting at. The GOP method of arguing against anything seems to have become obscuration by decimation - lay waste any and all fact or information produced by anyone, saying nothing can be trusted, therefore I'm right because I feel that way. It is the utter destruction of useful dialogue.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:30 PM) You call this progression. Heh. The government taking something over is not progression, it's regression. How could it be regression? Did the federal government run healthcare before?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:24 PM) That could very well be the case, and its important not to paint all conservative criticisms of Obama with the rabid right-winger brush. Sure, as goes for both sides. I just think there is a difference between the methods of the far wings of each party. The lefty whackos love their conspiracy theories and they fear everything they can't see. The righty wackos love their slippery slopes and fear everything their imaginations come up with. But the lefty course of action is protest and platitudes, and the righty course is fearmongering and threats of violence. Neither are particularly logical, but the latter is a little worse for the country.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:15 PM) Are you paying attention? They haven't NOT proposed it, which is really the point. It means they're covered. When the Congresional Research Service is under the opinion that they'll have ability for coverage under this, that makes a pretty good statement. I don't understand why this doesn't bother people. They throw that 46/7 million number around like it's the world dying, yet, the points that are made about "immy-gants" are just swept under the rug as nothing and no big deal. Which way is it? My lord. Really? They haven't NOT proposed we cede Alaska back to Russia either. Should we fund the Palins to buy some tanks and fighter jets to keep those Ruskies at bay? Your argument could literally be used to protest anything, even things that do not exist, and then somehow cast us all as "not paying attention", because we don't see the non-existent. This argument reminds me of the character from Mystery Men who claimed he was invisible, but only when no one was looking at him. Makes a nice piece of fiction, but... really?

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:03 PM) Aye aye aye. Ok. I mean, there weren't MOVIES made about killing GWB, or anything like that. No unruly protests whatsoever. And the whole "stolen election" crap and that "people need to take back this country" language using arms in 2000. No, none of that. Everthing's just so peaceful, until "right wing kooks" say stuff. I see. We're just "clinging to our guns and religion" out here. I get it. Peace, love, and no war. Ya know, I honestly think that there is less volume of anger and frustration now than there was during W's Presidency. Reality is simply that more people were upset with the direction of the country then, than there are now, as shown in the polls. That said, I do think that the vocal minority on the right is more hate-filled anger-ridden than their lefty alter ego.