Author Topic: U.S. Politics  (Read 644545 times)

0 Members and 52 Guests are viewing this topic.

d sw0rdz

  • Shaun Ellis
  • *******
  • Posts: 5274
  • I'm Chad Pennington
Re: U.S. Politics
« Reply #1755 on: March 09, 2017, 09:33:47 PM »
really just read a headline that said 'EPA chief pruitt doesn't believe CO2 is a primary contributor to global warming'




GOD

FVUCKING

DAMMIT

Badger

  • Global Moderator
  • Joe Namath
  • *****
  • Posts: 51862
  • The only one who's not a piece of excrement
Re: U.S. Politics
« Reply #1756 on: March 09, 2017, 10:28:19 PM »
really just read a headline that said 'EPA chief pruitt doesn't believe CO2 is a primary contributor to global warming'




GOD

FVUCKING

DAMMIT

Time to play "Stupid or Liar"

Derek Smalls

  • Mark Gastineau
  • *********
  • Posts: 19654
Re: U.S. Politics
« Reply #1757 on: March 10, 2017, 12:06:07 AM »
To be fair, if you don't believe in global warming, nothing would be a primary contributor to global warming.

You would hope that one of those people wouldn't be the head of the EPA, but welcome to Trumpland!

Fenwyr

  • Shaun Ellis
  • *******
  • Posts: 5611
  • He's the greatest
Re: U.S. Politics
« Reply #1758 on: March 10, 2017, 02:57:15 AM »
To be fair, if you don't believe in global warming, nothing would be a primary contributor to global warming.

You would hope that one of those people wouldn't be the head of the EPA, but welcome to Trumpland!
Its all good.  Tommy can explain.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk


AlioTheFool

  • Administrator
  • Al Toon
  • *****
  • Posts: 13915
  • All Gas. No Brake.
Re: U.S. Politics
« Reply #1759 on: March 10, 2017, 01:32:07 PM »
We have an Education Secretary that believes guns belong in schools to protect against bear attacks. We have an FCC Chief who thinks Net Neutrality is bad. We have national security advisers who are in bed with Russia.

And people are shocked by an EPA head who denies the cause of climate change? Despite the fact that climate change denial is the official position of the administration?
Teams that draft well do so no matter where they pick. Teams that draft poorly do so no matter where they pick I want my team to win games and draft well

d sw0rdz

  • Shaun Ellis
  • *******
  • Posts: 5274
  • I'm Chad Pennington
Re: U.S. Politics
« Reply #1760 on: March 10, 2017, 05:22:49 PM »
We have an Education Secretary that believes guns belong in schools to protect against bear attacks. We have an FCC Chief who thinks Net Neutrality is bad. We have national security advisers who are in bed with Russia.

And people are shocked by an EPA head who denies the cause of climate change? Despite the fact that climate change denial is the official position of the administration?

i am not shocked, i am fed up and done with this administration, as i have been for a long time

AlioTheFool

  • Administrator
  • Al Toon
  • *****
  • Posts: 13915
  • All Gas. No Brake.
Re: U.S. Politics
« Reply #1761 on: March 10, 2017, 08:29:40 PM »
i am not shocked, i am fed up and done with this administration, as i have been for a long time
Honestly that was a highly sarcastic post to point out the absolute ridiculousness of the "drain the swamp" mantra nonsense.

Sure, Trump eliminated the administration members beholden to the lobbyists. He simply cut out all the middle men and gave the jobs directly to the lobbyers.

I'm with you. I'm done with even feigning benefit of the doubt. This guy is hot garbage.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

Teams that draft well do so no matter where they pick. Teams that draft poorly do so no matter where they pick I want my team to win games and draft well

Badger

  • Global Moderator
  • Joe Namath
  • *****
  • Posts: 51862
  • The only one who's not a piece of excrement
Re: U.S. Politics
« Reply #1762 on: March 12, 2017, 11:21:18 PM »
http://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-health-plan-would-hit-rural-areas-hard-1489364405

Edit: Article is suddenly behind a paywall, but you can read the whole thing if you Google the headline and open it from there.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2017, 11:24:50 PM by Badger »

Tommy

  • Mark Gastineau
  • *********
  • Posts: 15164
  • I don't get it
Re: U.S. Politics
« Reply #1763 on: March 13, 2017, 12:04:47 PM »
http://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-health-plan-would-hit-rural-areas-hard-1489364405

Edit: Article is suddenly behind a paywall, but you can read the whole thing if you Google the headline and open it from there.

Quote
Rural regions' higher premiums are driven partly by a population that tends to be sicker and require costlier care, with higher rates of chronic conditions such as diabetes and heart disease, said April Todd, an executive at consulting firm Avalere Health, a unit of Inovalon Inc. Also, insurers often struggle to win price concessions from health-care providers who have few competitors, she said. "Given that they're the only hospital, you don't have a lot of negotiating leverage."

The analysis ignores one of the key parts of the new bill, which tackles this very problem. Allowing people in rural areas to buy insurance registered in different states, which would allow those in rural areas more options.
"Wrong!"

Johnny English

  • Administrator
  • Don Maynard
  • *****
  • Posts: 35864
  • Effort. Technique. Violence.
Re: U.S. Politics
« Reply #1764 on: March 13, 2017, 12:10:05 PM »
The analysis ignores one of the key parts of the new bill, which tackles this very problem. Allowing people in rural areas to buy insurance registered in different states, which would allow those in rural areas more options.

Surely those out of state insurers are going to have the same problem though, or are you suggesting that people will have to go out of state to get treatment?
A cross-dressing limey poofter

Fenwyr

  • Shaun Ellis
  • *******
  • Posts: 5611
  • He's the greatest
Re: U.S. Politics
« Reply #1765 on: March 13, 2017, 12:44:31 PM »
Surely those out of state insurers are going to have the same problem though, or are you suggesting that people will have to go out of state to get treatment?
It's not going to matter.  Without subsidies or expanded medicaid most rural folks will never be able to afford health care anyway.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk


Johnny English

  • Administrator
  • Don Maynard
  • *****
  • Posts: 35864
  • Effort. Technique. Violence.
Re: U.S. Politics
« Reply #1766 on: March 13, 2017, 12:50:13 PM »
It's not going to matter.  Without subsidies or expanded medicaid most rural folks will never be able to afford health care anyway.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk



That may be so, but I was addressing Tommy's specific point which as far as I can tell (and I fully admit to my ignorance of much of the US health system) doesn't help with the issue of a lack of competing healthcare providers in rural regions resulting in higher costs to insurers and thus (presumably) higher premiums.
A cross-dressing limey poofter

Tommy

  • Mark Gastineau
  • *********
  • Posts: 15164
  • I don't get it
Re: U.S. Politics
« Reply #1767 on: March 13, 2017, 12:52:22 PM »
Surely those out of state insurers are going to have the same problem though, or are you suggesting that people will have to go out of state to get treatment?

I'll admit that I don't know enough about the proposed plan to answer this question. Didn't have time to actually take a closer look at the document, so give me a few days.
"Wrong!"

Fenwyr

  • Shaun Ellis
  • *******
  • Posts: 5611
  • He's the greatest
Re: U.S. Politics
« Reply #1768 on: March 13, 2017, 01:24:34 PM »
I'll admit that I don't know enough about the proposed plan to answer this question. Didn't have time to actually take a closer look at the document, so give me a few days.
Well, that puts you in the same boat as most republicans in congress that have no choice but to vote for this dumpster fire.  Why bother reading it?

The TLDR version of the bill is 15 million will lose health care while the uber rich will get uber richer.

Shocking, I know.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk


Tommy

  • Mark Gastineau
  • *********
  • Posts: 15164
  • I don't get it
Re: U.S. Politics
« Reply #1769 on: March 13, 2017, 01:32:18 PM »
Well, that puts you in the same boat as most republicans in congress that have no choice but to vote for this dumpster fire.  Why bother reading it?

The TLDR version of the bill is 15 million will lose health care while the uber rich will get uber richer.

Shocking, I know.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

I know proponents of Obamacare like to throw that number around, but that was the main point of the tax penalty for not having insurance. The mandate artificially increases the number of insured so those people who would otherwise opt out essentially had to get insurance. Now does that mean all 20 million are in that category? No, but a good majority are. Some people would rather have the extra cash. It's an obvious risk, but having a government mandate isn't cool.
"Wrong!"

Tags: