Scott SoCal said:
There's no such thing as "obamacare".. no adult conversation can take place with those using that word.
-
The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
- Status
There's no such thing as "obamacare".. no adult conversation can take place with those using that word.
Scott SoCal said:
Nah, it's just an activist judge who wants to legislate. I thought we were going to get rid of those clowns?
Back to the Middle East:
There's basically three 'great' countries in the Middle East with large population, a national identity, a long history and relatively good cohesion. Those are: Turkey, Egypt and Iran representing the different ethnicities of Turks, Arabs and Persians.
Iran has been set on a collision course with the US when Mossadeq was overthrown with the help of the CIA at the request of oil companies.
Egypt has 'enjoyed' a dictatorship and emergency laws propped by the US for more than 4 decades (Nasser, before that, had Egypt aligned with the Soviet Union). So, we're basically looking at a Cold War legacy where democracy and economic progress was sacrificed for stability. We'll see how that'll work out in the near future or whether there's a backlash.
Turkey, while a NATO member, has encountered frustration with its European neighbors in the bid to join the EU. More recently, Turkey has adjusted its course with respect to Israel and Iran.
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, and even Iraq aren't really that important. As countries, they're mostly cobbled together, there's very little common history, geography, ethnicity, etc. The only common denominator is oil which magnifies the importance of those countries far beyond of what it would be otherwise.
And Glenn Wilson: ???
whoooooo???? what??? Heritagecare???
""In 1990, the Heritage Foundation proposed an individual mandate
The second central element in the Heritage proposal is a two-way commitment between government and citizen. Under this social contract, the federal government would agree to make it financially possible, through refund abletax benefits or in some cases by providing access to public-sector health programs, for every American family to purchase at least a basic package of medical care, including catastrophic insurance. In return, government would require, by law every head of household to acquire at least a basic health plan for his or her family. Thus there would be mandated coverage under the Heritage proposal, but the mandate would apply to the family head, who is the appropriate person to shoulder the primary responsibility for the family's health needs, rather than employers... ""
""In 1990, the Heritage Foundation proposed an individual mandate
The second central element in the Heritage proposal is a two-way commitment between government and citizen. Under this social contract, the federal government would agree to make it financially possible, through refund abletax benefits or in some cases by providing access to public-sector health programs, for every American family to purchase at least a basic package of medical care, including catastrophic insurance. In return, government would require, by law every head of household to acquire at least a basic health plan for his or her family. Thus there would be mandated coverage under the Heritage proposal, but the mandate would apply to the family head, who is the appropriate person to shoulder the primary responsibility for the family's health needs, rather than employers... ""
redtreviso said:
Who ever suggested there was an adult conversation taking place in this thread?
Scott SoCal said:
Lol at the idea of redtreviso suggesting a conversation. Thats like Hosni Mubarak calling for liberal democracy.
Glenn_Wilson said:
Or they could be thwarted by Egypt not going to war with Israel, starting a democratic movement that begins to shape a new democratic pan-Arabic allegiance not specifically fabricated along the interests and likings of the superpower, which then has the political strength to seriously contest US and Israeli interests in the region, allows the Arabs to manage their own energy recourse giving preferential treatment to the Chinese, India and Russia, thus driving America into a fuel and political crisis, reducing Israel's power in the region to a mere military threat (and, furthermore, transforming it into a burden to its US and European allies), thereby reestablishing the axis of hegemony from West to East while holding the destinies of both.
Long before this could ever happen, though, you will see the American and British and Israeli secret services and military given the new operative directive to end democracy now in the Middle East, while also fomenting orientalism in the West, then playing the trump card of financing Islamic terrorist groups to further demonize the region and win widespread global support to take over as before.
rhubroma said:
The Saudis would gladly play that trump card and pay for it...They just need a call from 41 to get another 19 rolling
Scott SoCal said:
No, I didn't read it in its entirety. You quoted part of it from your first link (yes, I read that), and it's pretty clear from the 'British mandate ... East India Company ... tax on tea ... constitution ... founding fathers ...' crap that this guy is a tea party activist judge.
And you know what, I don't really care. Let those right wing extremists shout and scream about health care. It gives them something to do where they can't cause any harm.
Cobblestones said:
Vinson is a Reagan appointee...
You should care. I'm not so sure you can dismiss him/them with talking points. Following the Constitution is not widely considered Right Wing extremism (except, possibly, by Left Wing extremists).
Scott SoCal said:
A convenient little terror attack on New York right now would let all the current regimes in the middle east hold on to power by whatever means.
Scott SoCal said:
Bandar and 41 would only find an upside. Maybe there would be a larger percentage of American liberal victims than republicans.. win win.
Your spokespeople/prophets/leaders at foxnews are falling all over themselves trying to frame these revolts as al Qaeda
Scott SoCal said:
Scott, the health care act has been tried in many different courts. Much more often than not, it has come out on top. That's often not reported or if so, it doesn't survive for half a media cycle because it's the expected result. This guy's making a splash because he throws out the entire bill on the basis that the mandate is unconstitutional and not a separable provision. I doubt either of these viewpoints will survive, much less so both together (which would be required to kill the entire bill). And he's still a couple of steps removed from the supreme court (where I'm sure the whole thing will end up eventually anyway, probably in 2015 or so).
Really I don't care at the moment. When this thing comes to the supreme court, a lot of the provisions will have kicked in and more likely than not, the American people will love and enjoy them. So, even if the bill or parts of it might get thrown out, the legislators will rush in to fix it rather than celebrate that it's gone. The rhetoric of 'job-killing health care bill' will be forgotten, simply because it will be a decision between popular health care provisions then and there against 'job-killing' rhetoric and vague promises for the future (if you happen to believe that to start with). You'll see. If you press republicans right now, they won't even go back on 'pre-existing conditions' 'college age children on family plan' 'no annual/lifetime cap' and so on and so on, because they all know deep inside that that stuff is very popular. Leaving any of that out is a losing proposition.
If, for some reason, the bill loses in the supreme court, and the American people really have come to hate it (why that would be I can't see, but ok), then fine, I wouldn't have any problem throwing it out. Whether it's going to be replaced and if so by what, I have no idea. Right now I just don't care.
If the individual mandate really isn't going to survive, I'd suggest to have a 'medical emergency tax' which would go to hospitals to cover their cost of treating uninsured medical emergencies. Because, you know, the money for that has to come from somewhere. Kind of like local taxes right now go to pay for fire stations etc. Between that and an individual mandate, which one do you think is going to be more popular? In the end, it's going to be a democratic decision. If the mandate comes out on top of the opinion polls, lawyers will figure out a way to make it conform to whatever 200+ year old document you might chose to put in front of them (for a small fee, of course).
""Bolton: If Mubarak falls in Egypt, Israel should bomb Iran
"Do you think that the Israelis are going to have to strike — they are going to have to take action?" Fox News Republican opinion host Sean Hannity asked the former ambassador on his radio program Monday.
"As you pointed out, ElBaradei ran cover for the Iranians for all those years that he was with the IAEA. And, I just don’t think the Israelis have much longer to wait… they're going to have to act in fairly short order."""
THEY?? he really means "we"
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/bolton-israel-bomb-iran-mubarak-falls/
"Do you think that the Israelis are going to have to strike — they are going to have to take action?" Fox News Republican opinion host Sean Hannity asked the former ambassador on his radio program Monday.
"As you pointed out, ElBaradei ran cover for the Iranians for all those years that he was with the IAEA. And, I just don’t think the Israelis have much longer to wait… they're going to have to act in fairly short order."""
THEY?? he really means "we"
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/bolton-israel-bomb-iran-mubarak-falls/
Cobblestones said:
I think the score on court rulings is 3-2.
I'm not saying provisions in the plan are not popular. If, on average, everyone's premium goes up 40% to pay for all these popular goodies and nobody has a problem with that, then so be it.
If all the healthy 30 year olds don't mind paying health ins premiums when they never did or had to before (to subsidize their parents and grandparents)
then I'm cool with that too.
But I suspect these popular provisions will become less so when the vast majority of the payors figure out that the provisions were not free at all.
But I'm with you. This is going to the Supremes and I don't really care what the outcome is (anymore). It's certainly not like I can do anything about it anyways.
redtreviso said:
Yeah, I really would'nt know as I don't watch much Foxnews. But by all means keep us up to speed on what's happening there.
Scott SoCal said:
Sometimes, I sincerely hope you guys get the world you advocate for. The biggest problem is that the poor don't deserve to suffer the consequences for your ideas being put into place, but then again, they never have been, nor ever will be a demographic your party cares all that much about.
Scott SoCal said:
How many times have you said this? And yet you keep having to repeat it.
Why?
Because trolls see what kind of line annoys someone and then proceed to repeat it and repeat it and repeat it.
Notice how he has never responded to you making this point. Hell just let it go then repeat it at a later date for maximum effect. In life they call it bullying. Small people who need to feel big kind of thing. On the internet its called trolling.
The best response is always the "dont feed the troll" method. You can put him on ignore like i have done. Then in your case you can go on having debates with your more sensible and cultured ideological opponents like cobblestones or TFF without getting into spats with someone whose only purpose is to derail things.
Scott SoCal said:
I think it depends whether you take into account all the lower rulings and all the cases which were dismissed at an early state (granted most of them were initiated by absolute numbnuts which had no idea about how the legal system works).
Anyway, I agree with the rest of your sentiments. In the end it's about the bottom line. Of course, it's not like premiums aren't increasing under the current system. It'll be hard to argue what precisely is the cause of future increases.
The one thing I'm still surprised is that you defend 30 something males for not paying into any healthcare system. Even though they might not go to the doctor at all for quite some time, they're still depending on the present infrastructure eventually. May it be later when they're in their forties or fifties, may it be when their wives or girlfriends get pregnant, may it be if they have an emergency, a traffic accident or who knows what. These guys are freeloaders as far as I see it.
Thoughtforfood said:
Ok, I'll bite.
Do you see a constitutional issue with the mandated purchase of health insurance?
If this was about the poor would not coverage be extended to everyone?
I would argue providing an opportunity for the poor to not be poor anymore is far more compassionate than giving them enough to barely eek out an existance.
I guess we will disagree though.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 29K
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 11K
-
Il Lombardia 2024, one day monument, October 12, farewell to Domenico Pozzovivo- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 880
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 22K
-
-
Teams & Riders Everybody needs a little bit of Roglstomp in their lives- Started by johnymax
- Replies: 19K
-
Teams & Riders Chris Froome Discussion Thread.- Started by Miburo
- Replies: 21K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram