Pages: 1 … 66 67 68 69 70 … 696

 

2011-04-04 13:40:57
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6962|132 and Bush

Dilbert_X wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jeb Bush - I can see the banners "C'mon, third time lucky" "They can't all be imbeciles, can they?" "Vote for me or the black guy gets in"
Jeb was actually groomed for the position and had been for sometime before lil' Georgie stepped up.

I think Jeb would have been much better, and would have run and won if not for his brother.
Christmas parties must be a lot of fun in that household.
Jeb does not share his brothers personality. He comes off reserved and educated. ..bi-lingual, relaxed in a crisis..
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2011-04-04 14:00:04
Poseidon
Fudgepack DeQueef
+3,253|6899|Long Island, New York

Jay wrote:

I could vote for Chris Christie or Ron Paul if they ran. The rest can suck my dick.
I really wish Christie would run. He seems pretty dedicated to Jersey though, and that's commendable.
2011-04-04 16:42:43
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6772|'Murka

Jay wrote:

True. Here's the best the Republicans have to offer.

By NAFTALI BENDAVID

Republicans will present this week a 2012 budget proposal that would cut more than $4 trillion from federal spending projected over the next decade and transform the Medicare health program for the elderly, a move that will dramatically reshape the budget debate in Washington.

The budget has been prepared by Rep. Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican and the new chairman of the House Budget Committee, and it represents the most complete attempt so far by Republicans to make good on their promises during the 2010 midterm elections to cut government spending and deficits.

Though Rep. Ryan based the Medicare portion of his budget on a previous plan created in collaboration with a Democrat, Alice Rivlin, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and long-time budget expert, the current plan isn't likely to get much Democratic support. Instead, it will set up a broad debate over spending and the role of government heading into the 2012 general election.

The plan would essentially end Medicare, which now pays most of the health-care bills for 48 million elderly and disabled Americans, as a program that directly pays those bills. Mr. Ryan and other conservatives say this is necessary because of the program's soaring costs. Medicare cost $396.5 billion in 2010 and is projected to rise to $502.8 billion in 2016. At that pace, spending on the program would have doubled between 2002 and 2016.

Mr. Ryan's proposal would apply to those currently under the age of 55, and for those Americans would convert Medicare into a "premium support" system. Participants from that group would choose from an array of private insurance plans when they reach 65 and become eligible, and the government would pay about the first $15,000 in premiums. Those who are poorer or less healthy would receive bigger payments than others.

"There is nobody saying that Medicare can stay in its current path," Mr. Ryan said on Fox News Sunday. "We should not be measuring ourselves against some mythical future of Medicare that isn't sustainable."

The proposal would also convert Medicaid, the health program for the poor, into a series of block grants to give states more flexibility. And it is expected to suggest significant cuts in Social Security, while proposing fewer details on how to achieve them.

The federal government expects to spend about $275 billion in 2011 on Medicaid, the program that provides medical care to the poor and disabled, up from $117.9 billion in 2000. The Congressional Budget Office projects Medicaid spending will roughly double by 2021.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … _pageone_0

So what he wants to do is hand a giant chunk of money to insurance companies in the form of premium subsidies for old people (in place of Medicare). Sounds swell right? Except all government subsidies do is raise prices. If you announced to the country that all cab rides would have the first $5 of their fare subsidized by the government, cab fares would instantly shoot up $5 across the board. This is not conjecture, this is what happens every time the federal government raises the subsidy for college tuition, or raises the payouts for Medicare.

Paul Ryan is supposed to be the Republicans budget hawk but every proposal he's floated has been worse than what's currently in place. The guy is a turd.
Wrong. What his plan does is put the money that the Feds would've been paying directly to the same insurance companies into the hands of the consumers instead, to shop competitively amongst the various insurance companies. Same companies that were getting paid via essentially no-competition contracts before. And those companies are subject to insurance commissions regarding rate increases, as well...so the whole "$15,000 rate overnight for all insurers" isn't likely to happen, either. All this does is take the same money and change how it's doled out.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2011-04-04 17:33:15
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5719|London, England
Sorry FEOS, that's the company line but it defies sound economic thought. All it would do is raise premiums.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-04-04 18:26:01
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6772|'Murka

Jay wrote:

Sorry FEOS, that's the company line but it defies sound economic thought. All it would do is raise premiums.
It's not the company line. I'm not a "company man". I'm someone who deals with medical insurance--both public and private--day in and day out in my private life.

It does not defy sound economic thought. It is in line with the competitive market place driving costs down for the consumer. Insurance companies will have to compete for business they never had to compete for before, and consumers can be more discriminating about what care they receive (or don't receive) for their money.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2011-04-04 18:42:04
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6772|'Murka

11 Bravo wrote:

FEOS wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

well you need to pay my salary and fly delta...aint gonna give them to you if you fly united
We'll have to see if Delta has the best prices. And when I'm flying. I'll let you know...if srs.

Problem is that it's a 2-stop trip flying Delta, each way. Coming back, I'll have a 16-month-old (will probably need the lounge more, then ). Trying to minimize layovers, except the first stop in the US, to account for customs.

If I fly United, I can go 1-stop. But ticket prices are starting to climb exponentially.

Should find out travel dates today. I'll PM.
well dont make your choice off the lounge...it aint that great.  plus i have to request it.  tis possible but if its easier and cheaper i would do what you have to do.
Oh, don't worry. It'll be based on fare, regardless. Looks like we might only have ~10 days notice before we travel, which means I'm going to get ass-raped on airfare. But Delta was looking pretty good...just required 2 stops, both ways. Bleh.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2011-04-04 20:10:20
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5719|London, England

FEOS wrote:

Jay wrote:

Sorry FEOS, that's the company line but it defies sound economic thought. All it would do is raise premiums.
It's not the company line. I'm not a "company man". I'm someone who deals with medical insurance--both public and private--day in and day out in my private life.

It does not defy sound economic thought. It is in line with the competitive market place driving costs down for the consumer. Insurance companies will have to compete for business they never had to compete for before, and consumers can be more discriminating about what care they receive (or don't receive) for their money.
Yes, competition drives down costs for the consumer, but not when the government is providing a subsidy. When the government raises the subsidy it pays out for low income students to attend college, colleges turn around and raise tuition rates. It's not because they are trying to keep those low income students out, it's simply because they know they can squeeze more money out while maintaining the same number of students.

Medicare sucks, but I don't think suddenly dumping billions of (tax) dollars into the insurance market is the best alternative. Also, his plan doesn't address really address the problem (though it's too late at this point), those 55+ that are grandfathered in still haven't paid enough damn taxes to fund their own retirements. They're about to skate into retirement, thumb their nose at the rest of us, and slam the door behind them. Fucking hate baby boomers.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-04-05 00:43:52
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,818|6467|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

True. Here's the best the Republicans have to offer.

By NAFTALI BENDAVID

Republicans will present this week a 2012 budget proposal that would cut more than $4 trillion from federal spending projected over the next decade and transform the Medicare health program for the elderly, a move that will dramatically reshape the budget debate in Washington.

The budget has been prepared by Rep. Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican and the new chairman of the House Budget Committee, and it represents the most complete attempt so far by Republicans to make good on their promises during the 2010 midterm elections to cut government spending and deficits.

Though Rep. Ryan based the Medicare portion of his budget on a previous plan created in collaboration with a Democrat, Alice Rivlin, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and long-time budget expert, the current plan isn't likely to get much Democratic support. Instead, it will set up a broad debate over spending and the role of government heading into the 2012 general election.

The plan would essentially end Medicare, which now pays most of the health-care bills for 48 million elderly and disabled Americans, as a program that directly pays those bills. Mr. Ryan and other conservatives say this is necessary because of the program's soaring costs. Medicare cost $396.5 billion in 2010 and is projected to rise to $502.8 billion in 2016. At that pace, spending on the program would have doubled between 2002 and 2016.

Mr. Ryan's proposal would apply to those currently under the age of 55, and for those Americans would convert Medicare into a "premium support" system. Participants from that group would choose from an array of private insurance plans when they reach 65 and become eligible, and the government would pay about the first $15,000 in premiums. Those who are poorer or less healthy would receive bigger payments than others.

"There is nobody saying that Medicare can stay in its current path," Mr. Ryan said on Fox News Sunday. "We should not be measuring ourselves against some mythical future of Medicare that isn't sustainable."

The proposal would also convert Medicaid, the health program for the poor, into a series of block grants to give states more flexibility. And it is expected to suggest significant cuts in Social Security, while proposing fewer details on how to achieve them.

The federal government expects to spend about $275 billion in 2011 on Medicaid, the program that provides medical care to the poor and disabled, up from $117.9 billion in 2000. The Congressional Budget Office projects Medicaid spending will roughly double by 2021.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … _pageone_0

So what he wants to do is hand a giant chunk of money to insurance companies in the form of premium subsidies for old people (in place of Medicare). Sounds swell right? Except all government subsidies do is raise prices. If you announced to the country that all cab rides would have the first $5 of their fare subsidized by the government, cab fares would instantly shoot up $5 across the board. This is not conjecture, this is what happens every time the federal government raises the subsidy for college tuition, or raises the payouts for Medicare.

Paul Ryan is supposed to be the Republicans budget hawk but every proposal he's floated has been worse than what's currently in place. The guy is a turd.
That, and didn't Republicans create the bloated medicare program in the first place to buy the aged vote?

@Burnzz generally the right wing has poor ideas and reasonable implementation, the left vice versa.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-04-05 00:45:41)

Fuck Israel
2011-04-05 02:55:10
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6772|'Murka

Jay wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Jay wrote:

Sorry FEOS, that's the company line but it defies sound economic thought. All it would do is raise premiums.
It's not the company line. I'm not a "company man". I'm someone who deals with medical insurance--both public and private--day in and day out in my private life.

It does not defy sound economic thought. It is in line with the competitive market place driving costs down for the consumer. Insurance companies will have to compete for business they never had to compete for before, and consumers can be more discriminating about what care they receive (or don't receive) for their money.
Yes, competition drives down costs for the consumer, but not when the government is providing a subsidy. When the government raises the subsidy it pays out for low income students to attend college, colleges turn around and raise tuition rates. It's not because they are trying to keep those low income students out, it's simply because they know they can squeeze more money out while maintaining the same number of students.

Medicare sucks, but I don't think suddenly dumping billions of (tax) dollars into the insurance market is the best alternative. Also, his plan doesn't address really address the problem (though it's too late at this point), those 55+ that are grandfathered in still haven't paid enough damn taxes to fund their own retirements. They're about to skate into retirement, thumb their nose at the rest of us, and slam the door behind them. Fucking hate baby boomers.
What you're missing is that it's not "suddenly dumping billions of (tax) dollars into the insurance market". Those billions of tax dollars are already in the insurance market, but being paid via no-competition situations from Medicare to insurance companies directly, without consumer involvement.

And I agree that grandfathering those 55 and older doesn't really help the problem, either. But this is also the first time anyone has touched entitlements. Ever. 1/3 of the three biggest pieces of our budgetary problem (the other two being Social Security and Defense). If we can get Medicare reform of some sort, realizing trillions of dollars of savings, through the sausage-making machine, then we have a chance at real progress on the other two, as well.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2011-04-05 15:52:41
13urnzz
Banned
+5,830|6858

Bristol Palin earns $262K for teen pregnancy work

i'd cite my source, but fuck it . . .
2011-04-05 23:03:17
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,068|7133|PNW

The administration of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has outlawed smoking  in restaurants, bars and playgrounds, and outside hospital entrances. Even city parks, beaches and pedestrian plazas are now off limits to smokers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/05/nyreg … oosie.html
Doesn't the writer mean, "off limits to cigarette smoke?" Cry me a river.
2011-04-05 23:08:27
RTHKI
mmmf mmmf mmmf
+1,745|7098|Cinncinatti
cigarette smoke can travel, lit cigarettes innit
https://i.imgur.com/tMvdWFG.png
2011-04-05 23:37:22
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,068|7133|PNW

Less of a chance of the stuff gagging you if it's been dissipating over a length of a couple hundred feet than several paces away. I used to not mind the smell as a kid when visiting friends' houses but now it's like being hit in the face with a mallet. New chemicals or something.
2011-04-06 10:21:08
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5947

Bars and restaurants should be allowed to choose whether they are smoking or non-smoking. A ban in all city parks also seems excessive. Hospitals, playgrounds, and beaches seem fair.
2011-04-06 10:22:25
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6831
nothing grosses me out more at the beach than fucking cigarette ends everywhere. people using the beach as an ashtray for their lazy, disgusting bullshit
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2011-04-06 10:26:15
jord
Member
+2,382|7039|The North, beyond the wall.

Macbeth wrote:

Bars and restaurants should be allowed to choose whether they are smoking or non-smoking. A ban in all city parks also seems excessive. Hospitals, playgrounds, and beaches seem fair.
It smells, but I agree with Macbeth. It should be up to the proprietor to choose.
2011-04-06 10:27:50
Sturgeon
Member
+488|5302|Flintshire
Bars and pubs yeah, restaurants shouldn't be, it's just nasty when trying to eat and not being able to get away from it etc.
https://bf3s.com/sigs/3dda27c6d0d9b22836605b152b9d214b99507f91.png
2011-04-06 10:29:18
jord
Member
+2,382|7039|The North, beyond the wall.
Smoking areas would suffice for restaurants. They used to anyway.
2011-04-06 10:33:30
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5719|London, England

Macbeth wrote:

Bars and restaurants should be allowed to choose whether they are smoking or non-smoking. A ban in all city parks also seems excessive. Hospitals, playgrounds, and beaches seem fair.
Yes to the first part, no to the second. They pay the same taxes and have the same rights when it comes to public land use. Smoking stinks, sure, but no one is forcing you to stand next to a smoker outdoors. Move.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-04-06 11:14:18
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6491|North Tonawanda, NY

Jay wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Bars and restaurants should be allowed to choose whether they are smoking or non-smoking. A ban in all city parks also seems excessive. Hospitals, playgrounds, and beaches seem fair.
Yes to the first part, no to the second. They pay the same taxes and have the same rights when it comes to public land use. Smoking stinks, sure, but no one is forcing you to stand next to a smoker outdoors. Move.
Yes, as in you think bar owners should be allowed to choose if they allow smoking or not?

I agree with MacBeth.  Anti-smoking sentiment is far too pervasive nowadays.

Last edited by SenorToenails (2011-04-06 11:16:03)

2011-04-06 11:15:58
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5719|London, England

SenorToenails wrote:

Jay wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Bars and restaurants should be allowed to choose whether they are smoking or non-smoking. A ban in all city parks also seems excessive. Hospitals, playgrounds, and beaches seem fair.
Yes to the first part, no to the second. They pay the same taxes and have the same rights when it comes to public land use. Smoking stinks, sure, but no one is forcing you to stand next to a smoker outdoors. Move.
Yes, as in you think bar owners should be allowed to choose if they allow smoking or not?
Absolutely.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-04-06 11:16:39
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6491|North Tonawanda, NY

Jay wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

Jay wrote:

Yes to the first part, no to the second. They pay the same taxes and have the same rights when it comes to public land use. Smoking stinks, sure, but no one is forcing you to stand next to a smoker outdoors. Move.
Yes, as in you think bar owners should be allowed to choose if they allow smoking or not?
Absolutely.
I agree, but I remember once you said...

hang on

Edit:

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 1#p3211031

Jay wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

pilebomb wrote:

Never smoked, no desire to and don't give a shit if you do. Still think banning smoking in bars is stupid.
I agree!  Leave that decision to the owner of the establishment and as a patron, you can vote with your dollar.
It doesn't work like that though because you're still subjecting the employees of the bar/restaurant to all that second hand smoke. Lawsuits and medical bills just waiting to happen.

"Get a different job" doesn't really work either because it might be the only job they can find.

Last edited by SenorToenails (2011-04-06 11:18:26)

2011-04-06 11:18:00
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5620|foggy bottom
people who smoke cigarettes should be shot in the street and left for the buzzards to feed on
Tu Stultus Es
2011-04-06 11:18:39
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5719|London, England

SenorToenails wrote:

Jay wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:


Yes, as in you think bar owners should be allowed to choose if they allow smoking or not?
Absolutely.
I agree, but I remember once you said...

hang on
I said I didn't mind smoking outside because it was more polite.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-04-06 11:19:36
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5719|London, England

SenorToenails wrote:

Jay wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

Jay wrote:

Yes to the first part, no to the second. They pay the same taxes and have the same rights when it comes to public land use. Smoking stinks, sure, but no one is forcing you to stand next to a smoker outdoors. Move.
Yes, as in you think bar owners should be allowed to choose if they allow smoking or not?
Absolutely.
I agree, but I remember once you said...

hang on

Edit:

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 1#p3211031

Jay wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:


I agree!  Leave that decision to the owner of the establishment and as a patron, you can vote with your dollar.
It doesn't work like that though because you're still subjecting the employees of the bar/restaurant to all that second hand smoke. Lawsuits and medical bills just waiting to happen.

"Get a different job" doesn't really work either because it might be the only job they can find.
Ahh, well, now I'm singing a different tune

I quit smoking over two months ago anyway.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

 

Pages: 1 … 66 67 68 69 70 … 696

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard