53 replies to this topic

[Mr. Roboto]

Nobody is going to jail if they don't buy insurance. Personally I think given the confines of who really is in charge (corporations) the health care overhaul was a great start. I'd much preferred to see a Medicare styled program for all Americans, but we're simply not ready for that yet (maybe never.) The plan we ended up with is also similar to what the GOP proposed back in the 90's too. That's what's so funny about all the fuss they made, it was practically their plan.

[TAP]

The healthcare law is hard to understand because there is so much misinformation - I think it's telling though that the GOP 'talking points' are all simple and emotional, yet demonstrably incorrect (socialist, death panels,jailtime etc). I'm guessing it would be much more popular, and a certain election swinger, if it were debated on its actual content. But it's pretty obvious that the GOP is going to run two more years of anti-Obama - threatening (and obviously failing) to repeal all of healthcare reform and basically trying to return us to 2008. I'm guessing they will 'accidentally' introduce memes suggesting stuff like the banking collapse and bailout, even high deficits happened on Obama's watch like the Bushies 'accidentally' had several people claim there were no major terror attacks on US soil during the Bush presidency and plant the seed that 9/11 was in the Clinton presidency. One thing about healthcare reform cost seems to be that a lot of it isn't in direct funding other than start up funds for new bureaucracy, but rather in entitlements and tax breaks, so it will be 'interesting' (not in a good way) to see how threats to defund it through shutting down govt unfold.

[TAP]

His cap and trade plan for one.

Do you think there is even a need to control pollution, emissions etc or is it a liberal hoax?

[artcinco]

The current plan that is being challenged by several states in court does not do that?

[TAP]

The current plan that is being challenged by several states in court does not do that?

What?

[artcinco]

His cap and trade plan for one.

Do you think there is even a need to control pollution, emissions etc or is it a liberal hoax?

We currently have laws controlling pollution. I don't have a problem with that.

I am somewhat cynical about global climate change and plans that want to tax American industries and customers in the hopes of stopping it. Initially in the 70s there was talk of global cooling. Then in the 90s it was global warming. Now it is "climate change." If you look through the historical record there are periods of ice ages and other big climate swings. It doesn't seem to me that for the planet there is a default position. Climate is always changing.

As for greenhouse gasses there are natural things like volcanoes that release that. Humans release CO2. There is also the question of even if all the proposed actions are taken, many other countries will not go along and so American businesses will operate with added costs while our competition does not.

I think some people want to use the threat of climate change to bring about things that they wish to see happen. A number of people will benefit financially with all the increased bureaucracy. There is a big political part to this debate.

[artcinco]

The current plan that is being challenged by several states in court does not do that?

Sorry should be quoting more. Several states are suing over the Obama health plan due to its fining of people that fail to buy insurance.

[TAP]

The current plan that is being challenged by several states in court does not do that?

Sorry should be quoting more. Several states are suing over the Obama health plan due to its fining of people that fail to buy insurance.

You said jailing. It's a tax that would basically only be payable by wealthy people who didn't buy health insurance - to dissuade people from gaming teh system and showing up at hospitals when they get sick, it wouldn't come in until 2014 and will likely be removed by then.
http://factcheck.org.../irs-expansion/
The law does make individuals subject to a tax, starting in 2014, if they fail to obtain health insurance coverage. But IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman testified before a hearing of the House Ways and Means Committee March 25 that the IRS won’t be auditing individuals to certify that they have obtained health insurance. He said insurance companies will issue forms certifying that individuals have coverage that meets the federal mandate, similar to a form that lenders use to verify the amount of interest someone has paid on their home mortgage. "We expect to get a simple form, that we won’t look behind, that says this person has acceptable health coverage," Shulman said. "So there’s not going to be any discussions about health coverage with an IRS employee." In any case, the bill signed into law (on page 131) specifically prohibits the IRS from using the liens and levies commonly used to collect money owed by delinquent taxpayers, and rules out any criminal penalties for individuals who refuse to pay the tax or those who don’t obtain coverage. That doesn’t leave a lot for IRS enforcers to do.

[TAP]

I am somewhat cynical about global climate change.

Cynicism is healthy, it is what drives science. You should read this, it addresses all your points far better than I could - but he doesn't censor reponses so you can see arguments in favor of your points too
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
I'm not suggesting that I can convince you, but I would strongly suggest everyone takes Maher's advice and listens to the scientists rather than political commenters on both sides. All that matters (in my opinion) is whether it is true or not, there won't be a vote on the consequences.

[artcinco]

I did say jailing. I was unaware that in the law that requires insurance purchase or payment of a fine that they do not plan to enforce the fine paying. Is that actually in the law, the non-enforcement? Or is it just how IRS Commissioner Douglas Shuman sees it today? So actual enforcement of the non-fine payment by jailing would be considered a structural change while the compulsory purchasing of a product from a third party is not?

It will be interesting to see how the court cases turn out as my state is one of the ones suing.

I am on the hot seat today. I'm going to have to see if I can tag Flagg to jump in soon.

[artcinco]

I am somewhat cynical about global climate change.

Cynicism is healthy, it is what drives science. You should read this, it addresses all your points far better than I could - but he doesn't censor reponses so you can see arguments in favor of your points too
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
I'm not suggesting that I can convince you, but I would strongly suggest everyone takes Maher's advice and listens to the scientists rather than political commenters on both sides. All that matters (in my opinion) is whether it is true or not, there won't be a vote on the consequences.

I'll take a look. My thing is that I don't dispute that the climate changes. I just don't know if the scientists can accurately predict how much of it is human caused versus natural occurrence. That being said, even if it was shown to be mostly human caused, I still am not sure that the current remedies would be the best routes to take or would even be able to offset anything in a demonstrative way. Would all countries and peoples agree to do all the supposed things that might prevent the global temperature going up a couple of degrees or having a foot higher sea level? Would that mean a serious alteration to our current way of life? Would it impact our freedom to drive vehicles, air condition our homes, buy computers or HDTVs? Once we start down that road where will it lead?

[Mr. Roboto]

I often hear about the "Cooling" predictions that were taking place back then. This was a minuscule community compared to the world wide group of scientists who believe in global warming today, and merely pulled out of the hat to say "Look they were wrong about that, why should we now believe this?" I searched extensively for the cooling predictions and found very little about it.

[TAP]

I'll take a look. My thing is that I don't dispute that the climate changes. I just don't know if the scientists can accurately predict how much of it is human caused versus natural occurrence.

Well of course you don't, you're not a climate scientist I don't know either - but I'll put my trust in scientists over politicians and oil companies.

That being said, even if it was shown to be mostly human caused, I still am not sure that the current remedies would be the best routes to take or would even be able to offset anything in a demonstrative way. Would all countries and peoples agree to do all the supposed things that might prevent the global temperature going up a couple of degrees or having a foot higher sea level? Would that mean a serious alteration to our current way of life? Would it impact our freedom to drive vehicles, air condition our homes, buy computers or HDTVs? Once we start down that road where will it lead?

Well it might lead to us surviving as a race for longer, but having to watch TV's closer up and with fewer clothes on I don't know what the solution is, just saying I believe it is a genuine and severe problem.

[TAP]

I did say jailing. I was unaware that in the law that requires insurance purchase or payment of a fine that they do not plan to enforce the fine paying. Is that actually in the law, the non-enforcement? Or is it just how IRS Commissioner Douglas Shuman sees it today? So actual enforcement of the non-fine payment by jailing would be considered a structural change while the compulsory purchasing of a product from a third party is not?

It will be interesting to see how the court cases turn out as my state is one of the ones suing.

I am on the hot seat today. I'm going to have to see if I can tag Flagg to jump in soon.

Sometimes when you compromise, you end up with weird consequences - something which the right wing talk radio hosts love to use against Obama, but which insurance company CEOs love (because wealthy, healthy people would have to buy insurance) and which Howard Dean hates. I've been careful to not say whether I support the affordable health care act since I don't really know all of what it says or the consequences, but I do like to make sure we are debating the same facts
I personally think it's better to get your facts from the source (http://www.healthcare.gov) than from someone who not only makes their money through opinions, but from always having opinions on one side of the debate.....just sayin'

[TAP]

I often hear about the "Cooling" predictions that were taking place back then. This was a minuscule community compared to the world wide group of scientists who believe in global warming today, and merely pulled out of the hat to say "Look they were wrong about that, why should we now believe this?" I searched extensively for the cooling predictions and found very little about it.

http://www.skeptical...ns-in-1970s.htm