lostfan

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 24, 2010 -> 05:39 PM) I didn't speak for the entire human race. I never said you can't care about what you eat. I said NOBODY CARES ABOUT THAT ARGUMENT. It NEVER resolves itself. What needs to stop, is you need to a) stop putting words in peoples mouths, and B) acting like a democratic god of all and telling people what they should and shouldn't do, and last but not least, c) stop jumping to idiotic conclusions on what people say without f***ing asking them first. Y2HH, you're like Dennis the Menace dude. But for the record I can never recall any time where BS has been preachy or self-righteous about his lifestyle towards anybody here, or on Facebook, or anywhere.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 24, 2010 -> 09:26 AM) I've personally seen my internet service go from: Since the mid 80's when I first got involved. 300baud > 1200baud > 2400baud > 9600baud > 19200baud > 28k8baud > 56kdownbaud > 128k/128k sdsl > 512k/128k adsl > 1mbit/512k adsl > 2mbit/1mbit cable > 5mbit/2mbit cable > 12mbit/2mbit cable > 24mbit/10mbit cable (what I have now). So to say it hasn't gone anywhere is nonsense. Those are amazing jumps in speed considering the sheer size of this country. Unless you live in po-dunk, good internet service exists in many places and it's getting better by the day, with Verizon FIOS and Uverse beginning to step in, we are about to enter a boon era in terms of speed. And the po-dunk areas will eventually catch on, but maybe that's where the government needs to go spread it's debt...err, wealth, to bring them up to speed. Private companies have little need to spend billions expanding networks to towns where 3 people live. The increased competition from all of these companies, and more are coming, will put downward pressure on pricing, etc. If anything, the government can push these companies to do more, which isn't a bad thing...I just don't want them to suddenly start imposing added taxes, fees and other such garbage (such as they will) the minute they get involved. I didn't say it "hasn't gone anywhere" I said it hasn't gone very far forward, sure, maybe I could've used some more precise words but I didn't think the point was lost on anyone. I actually have about the same thing you have and I was giddy when it was installed, but I actually was thinking "seriously, what the hell took so long?" and I am kind of lucky because I live in one of Verizon's test markets so we got FIOS before. But just like you said, we are about to enter a boon era, we were just kind of limping along before. I'm also not really talking about these nowhere towns because that's another logistical issue entirely, but there are the mega-corridors from, say, LA to Seattle, DC to Boston, and the Rust Belt w/Chicago and that is probably 2/3 of the population of this country actually. Yeah, we are moving forward with some of this stuff, but compared to some other countries (again, only talking about the populated areas) we've fallen behind and we've been penetrating slower, and it's still pretty expensive (let's say I have a lot, but I get what I pay for). I don't say this to bash the telecommunications industry or anything like that. I'm just saying I wish we'd been more forward-thinking in the last few years than we have been.

Oh and I am fairly confident the poster with the earlier comment about Peavy getting lit up and wanting CR/AP back was being sarcastic/facetious.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 10:13 PM) http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/credejo01.shtml 9th column from the right. Remember: baseball-reference.com is your best baseball friend B-R is awesome

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 10:08 PM) Think of it this way... How many companies offer a pension? It died when the government stepped in with social security. History tells me that the same thing will happen here. My job does, a pretty f***ing bad ass one too by the way, at least according to my limited knowledge of it all - 10% of my salary annually whether I contribute or not

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 10:00 PM) Really? Okay, say it does. But now you have to ration the s*** out of your care because you now have a flood of people at a "lower cost", when in fact it isn't going to go any lower. Do you get a substantially lower cost on anything without a cut in quality or service? Inflation alone makes this a pretty stupid arguement... "bending cost curves" doesn't happen without a radical change in service. And if the attempt to transition off fee-for-service works and makes the system more efficient doesn't that kind of make the point moot? (actual question, not snarky remark, and for the record I really wanted them to go more aggressively after this, but political reality meant this wasn't going to happen)

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 09:57 PM) No, because it becomes a zero sum. Instead of the money that they have set aside for benefits, it now goes straight to the government in the form of a new tax ("penalty"). Since the money totally bypasses insurance and goes straight to the government... guess what happens? But the whole purpose of them dropping that benefit and paying the fine was because they were saving a significant amount of money, so there is a benefit to paying the fine instead, and they pocket that extra money...? If it was really zero sum then they might as well keep the benefit. But like Tex said in a roundabout way, now you as an employer look less attractive... it'd be the same thing as offering a lower salary.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 09:50 PM) Now that is on a level I can understand. lol, nicely done, too bad only people that have seen that Facebook group will know what you're talking about.

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 05:04 PM) The right wing cannot do any such thing. The democrats have the majority in congress and have the leadership in the committees. The reason ACORN is going away is because the democrats allowed it to. It wasn't really worth the political capital to fight that fight, the perception was already out there. I originally got registered to vote for the first time in 2000 (and oh my f***ing god, what a bitter taste that left in my mouth, it was like losing one's virginity by being raped) by ACORN, I would bet before most, if not all, posters here ever heard of it. There was nothing corrupt going on back then. The guy was a volunteer, trying to get young black kids involved, so he stood by my high school graduation as we were leaving the church, hollering out to us and telling us we had to register to vote. Since then, that's kind of how I pictured all ACORN activists. But the organizing infrastructure, and all that - I really can't see that going away, it's just going to come back as something else, it's not like the people that are honestly doing this because they're really true to what they believe are just going to pack up and go home.

QUOTE (Tex @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 08:26 PM) Why are companies offering health insurance benefits to begin with? If Company A offers me, say, $50k, and Company B offers me the same job and same salary but with insurance benefits, well guess where I'm going?

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 07:43 PM) Um, sure, because they are just going to let the government take care of it. Ultimately, it's "cheaper" that way. And, remember: no raises to make up for that lost benefit. Besides, why would they offer a plan that's now going to get the s*** taxed out of it? The government plan won't tax, but almost all of the plans that exist out there today that's being paid will be taxed to the individual, unless you're union or goverment workers. Ok, I'll bite here. If my employer (very unlikely but let's just say for the sake of argument) drops that benefit and pays the fine, I go and get my own insurance through an exchange or whatever at some comparable cost. They don't give me that money back in pure salary, and keep it as profit. Using the same logic that conservatives use for tax cuts (which I think has a point of diminishing returns that we've passed but that's another topic), wouldn't this money be used to hire new employees? What am I missing here?

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 12:04 PM) Just a FWIW comment - LASIK is not covered well by most health plans. I have a good one and if I choose LASIK they only cover something like 15%. It's considered elective so most plans (that I know of) don't or won't cover it. Mine doesn't either - that kinda sucks, I really wish it did

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 07:54 PM) In reply to BS (since the quote doesn't work). f*** Harry Reid. And McCain too, while you're at it. quote does work

QUOTE (vandy125 @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 11:01 AM) I'm actually in the group that you want to get insurance. I'm healthy, young, and single. So, I would definitely take a closer look to see if I actually do need it. You are probably right that I would go ahead and get it. However, there are plenty of people in just this same situation who won't. I now have a choice here that I can make a pretty significant case for both sides. Before this, it was always the case that you made sure that you had insurance if possible at all because of the pre-existing conditions issue. Now, that is not clear cut at all. If you are young and healthy, your risk has just dropped a ton with not getting insurance and you can save money too. I'm not sure that there is a strong enough push to get and keep the young and healthy in the insurance pool. I don't really need insurance, I have it because I want it. Well, also because I have kids and I'm responsible for other people, but even if it was just me (and it would only cost me like $1200 a year or something in that case, I'd have to look at the tables) I'd still have it. Like bmags said, why would I pay a fine of $700 for nothing, when I am spending a few hundred more, and actually go to the doctor, get checkups, get stronger allergy medicine instead of just toughing it out, etc.? Living life without health insurance, you pretty much have to go undefeated. It's like playing Super Mario Bros. with one life left.

Ok so the chart/map I posted the other day, it got some predictable replies but I did it for a reason. Since broadband first came on the scene for most people here about a decade or so ago, give or take, it hasn't been moved very far forward and the map was showing how other countries with similar means to us have done so much better. It wasn't a priority during the past decade, and I don't know the exact reasons but I'm going to assume, based on the ideological makeup of the last administration, that the people in charge were content to leave growth in this area up to market forces, and that it was going to take care of itself. It wasn't like it was a question of the government picking winners and losers either since there really wasn't much doubt about how broadband was going to be the backbone for other technologies in the very near future. My point was that this kind of pure dogma isn't always the best option and that these other countries whose governments have taken on more of a leadership role have gotten much better results. I'm just talking about plans, policies, and regulations, things like that - not necessarily subsidies, that is something I'll agree with conservatives on since our government has a pretty s***ty track record of ending subsidies once they've served their purpose. This brings me to another point I was thinking about. This, in a nutshell, is why I always fall left of center, but not all the way to the left. I don't want the government involved in most things except when it's necessary, or when I see some kind of verifiable evidence that government involvement in something makes things more equitable, or actually promotes growth. To a conservative, that's a philosophical question, government should never be involved in any markets except for the absolute basics like deterring criminal activity, even if the policy actually causes growth, because it's a basic principle of freedom. I agree up until the last part - I'm a practical guy, so doing something that limits growth just on a principle doesn't really make sense to me.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 06:19 PM) NSFW comic, this is SPECTACULAR! lol, that's hardly NSFW

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 10:37 PM) Yes, it's 30 million cancer patients. The only way I can see this not working is if a bunch of people choose to pay the fine instead of buying insurance. That's a hell of an assumption though, people aren't numbers. If I didn't have insurance, and I suddenly can afford it, I'm buying insurance, not looking to save a couple hundred dollars. s***, my whole family is healthy now, but do you see me putting that $400 some-odd dollars a month in my pocket? No... That said, yeah, the fees the insurance companies are going to pay will come out of that new pool of profits they'll have - this was their idea since it was their lobbyists that were involved in writing it, not some evil socialist.

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 06:31 PM) I kind of feel like Grayson is what I thought Franken would be. He's funny and biting but also hyperbolic. But since his initial appearance I've really enjoyed a lot of his interviews. I remember they took him on CNN and mustache man was trying to be like "you are saying i want to kill americans" and grayson didn't even bother taking the bait and just kept pushing forward what the bill would do. He's got conviction, I like him. I think he should stay in the house. When he first burst onto the scene with "get sick die quickly", I remember a lot of comments were like "The democrats finally have a republican!" Yeah Franken is a straight up wonk. I always knew he had it together because I read his books and whatnot but I didn't know he was going to completely change his public profile.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 02:17 PM) That's what I've been saying all along. I will edit by saying it does do SOME good things in the insurance arena that I felt were necessary, but it then does some very negative things without fixing the underlying issues at all -- cost. The costs remain the same, but now taxpayers help foot the bill...only now we have 30,000,000 more people involved. Funny that all the health care and drug stocks are up. The financial sector seems to think, if anything, this HELPED them more than it hurt them. Edit again, I see some insurance companies are down now, but not much. I know it's been lost on a lot of people what with the random paranoia and distortion and all, but this bill was basically put together *by* the insurance and drug industries, and the top recipients of campaign contributions from them are actually to Democrats and not even ones that were hard votes.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 11:39 AM) Little hyperbole on the 200 billion. My point still remains though, the government rarely, if ever, makes something more cost effective. And I just don't like the CBO's estimates anyway. Bipartisan or not, they're wrong on occasions, and to me this program can't be wrong or we're really screwing ourselves here in the long term. Just like social security or medicare, now that this is signed, we're never going to take it away. That's not an argument against reform, but of this particular reform. That argument, however, has been lost in the sea of political discourse. And to me your other arguments are what bothers me most. Does this bill address the ridiculous amounts of money that it costs to see a doctor? Is it going to cut costs beyond just preventative care? To me it seems like all we've done is do the health care industry a huge favor by giving them an extra 40 million people to take money from (even if the money is from all of us instead of the individual recieving the service). I dunno, in general I just feel like this was a wasted opportunity. OK yay, we all feel good because 40 million more people aren't dying on the streets of various diseases. For most Americans, we've now protected them against evil insurance companies that put caps and exclusions on their policies (both things i'm in favor of). But the per-transaction cost of the health care industry is still the major problem, and they didn't even address it. I keep seeing people say this, the bolded especially, that it does nothing to control costs. It does. It might not be as aggressively as some people wanted, but one of the long-term goals was to end the quantity-based system which does affect costs.

QUOTE (Soxy @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 04:15 PM) I wish I had a dollar for every time the word "baby killer" popped up on my facebook feed in the past few days. I seriously need some new friends. Or my friends need to stop marrying douchebags. Epic winner of the day: My friend is a pretty moderate democrat (mostly because of environmental issues--her political affiliation on FB is "Obama Rocks)). Her husband posted today about Obama the baby killer and how dems are all f***ing liars and he hates them. Blerg. I had to hide some of my really obnoxious friends from my news feed, I really don't like seeing all that s*** on Facebook, that's not what I come there for.

I hate that Grayson is made out to be the equivalent of Bachmann by lazy Beltway journalists. There is no equivalent of Bachmann on the left among elected officials. There just isn't.

I think immigration was always next.

If you're an average healthy young person who gets insurance through your job its not going to change much. If you're not healthy you won't be able to get insurance yet but that's because the new laws won't take effect until 2014 I think. I forget what the income level is but for something like less than 40k a year is exempt from the mandate.