Politics

[GoIrish41]

What is "so many"?? Because nearly 90% of our population is covered already. So lets collapse the system because of 10%? I was for REFORM. But the ACA went too far. And that is why it will fail, miserably.

Allowing government to get rid of private insurance and put us all in lines and in front of "panels" to decide what's best for us.


And better to look like heartless jerks, than morons that didn't bother to do the due diligence on the plan that you pushed through without the public support....


And I agree with you on the state issue. I'll shake your hand on that one. Local and state governments are far more efficent at actually serving the people.

10% = 31,500,000. Isn't that an unacceptable number of uninsured people?

As far as panels go, what do you think private insurance companies do? The fact that the government panels will do it, too, will expand coverage for the insured, not diminish it.

In 1950, the majority of Americans were against equality for African Americans. Should we not have done anything about it? If we would have followed the path "the people" wanted us to take, life in American would be a whole lot different than it is today -- especially if you are black. It's called the tyrany of the majority. It is easy for the majority of Americans who are already covered to say "screw it" when it comes to the other 10%, but that is 31.5 million people. It would be shameful to let that problem continue without trying to correct it. If you don't like ACA, I'm OK with that. Come up with something to replace it. Until then, it is the law of the land and that is how it should be.

 

[Cackalacky]

Working conditions, over here, are safe (are you kidding?). And you could argue that no matter how safe the workplace is, there will still be accidents. No amount of legislation can prevent accidents or stupidity.

And no sane person would argue otherwise. So you are saying there should be NO regulations then? This line of thinking is the same taken on guns and is flawed in so many ways.

We had regulations and need enforcement for a reason. Because in the past, there were such egregious infractions and lack of control that things like this happened all the time, workplace deaths were common...roadway deaths were common. Hence safety regulations, automobile and interstate travel regulations, drunk driving regulations, seat belt laws....

Part of my job is to evaluate safe working conditions and there are many companies who take it seriously because it affects your ability to get jobs and perform work thus being able to pay your employees or hire more if needed. Large contractors or companies will not hire subs that have bad insurance modifiers due to on the job injuries. America is much more safe a work place than it was even 20 years ago and its mainly due to the market driving it that way. You cannot get contracts to do work if you have too many on the job incidents.

All of these have saved countless lives. Look at the fertilizer plant as an example of what no regulation and enforcement allows to happen. Total disregard for safety to the surrounding community and employees.

 

[chicago51]

I didn't accuse any condition of being unsafe. More point was that outside of some basic safety regulations you could argue the government has overstepped its bounds.

My whole point was if you don't want overregulation you should be for campaign finance and lobyist reform.

As I mentioned how can we possibly expect to keep government out of business when business is controlling government?

The fact is the government should be helping competition by breaking up too big to fail companies. Lobyist and donors spend huge somes of money for regulations that will only hurt competition.

Health insurance exchanges from the ACA if they are not overregulated could actually be a great thing for competition. It will allow consumers to compare and make choices. As long as the exchanges are open to any insurance company that wants to particapate it has the opportunity to be a great thing. Free market at its finest.

I'm digressing here but another thing the goverment should change: make patents 2-3 years not 7 years at least for perscription drugs. Awarding innovation is important but these long patents essentially create monopolies and kill competition even after the patent has expired.

 

[Cackalacky]

And we wouldn't have the ACA, Unions...either.

Both of those are largely unpopular.

And Unions are just as bad as CU. If not WORSE because it's forced on it's members.

 

[Cackalacky]

Working conditions, over here, are safe (are you kidding?). And you could argue that no matter how safe the workplace is, there will still be accidents. No amount of legislation can prevent accidents or stupidity.

 

[irishpat183]

And no sane person would argue otherwise. So you are saying there should be NO regulations then? This line of thinking is the same taken on guns and is flawed in so many ways.

We had regulations and need enforcement for a reason. Because in the past, there were such egregious infractions and lack of control that things like this happened all the time, workplace deaths were common...roadway deaths were common. Hence safety regulations, automobile and interstate travel regulations, drunk driving regulations, seat belt laws....

Part of my job is to evaluate safe working conditions and there are many companies who take it seriously because it affects your ability to get jobs and perform work thus being able to pay your employees or hire more if needed. Large contractors or companies will not hire subs that have bad insurance modifiers due to on the job injuries. America is much more safe a work place than it was even 20 years ago and its mainly due to the market driving it that way. You cannot get contracts to do work if you have too many on the job incidents.

All of these have saved countless lives. Look at the fertilizer plant as an example of what no regulation and enforcement allows to happen. Total disregard for safety to the surrounding community and employees.

I didn't say "no regulations"...come on.


But the amount of red tape that companies put up with, MOST of it frivilous crap, can be done away with.

And yes, the fertilizer plant was horrific....but remember....the federal government didn't do their do diligence on that one either, despite said regulations in place.

Lack of regulation wasn't the issue there, it was enforcement. Yet the opponents cry for more regulation everytime something like that happens.

And Texas is a better place to do biz than anywhere else, even with that accident. Those are the exceptions, not the rule. Red tape, while still here, isn't as harsh as say...CA.

Where I live, the oil and energy capital of the US (Woodlands TX, Exxon moves in next year) is a fantastic place to live with TONS of jobs....nobody dying in the street, no work fires or building collapse every other week.....Yet you'd never know that by watching the news or the farce that is "Gasland" (I recommend watching FrackNation)

 

[irishpat183]

10% = 31,500,000. Isn't that an unacceptable number of uninsured people?

As far as panels go, what do you think private insurance companies do? The fact that the government panels will do it, too, will expand coverage for the insured, not diminish it.

In 1950, the majority of Americans were against equality for African Americans. Should we not have done anything about it? If we would have followed the path "the people" wanted us to take, life in American would be a whole lot different than it is today -- especially if you are black. It's called the tyrany of the majority. It is easy for the majority of Americans who are already covered to say "screw it" when it comes to the other 10%, but that is 31.5 million people. It would be shameful to let that problem continue without trying to correct it. If you don't like ACA, I'm OK with that. Come up with something to replace it. Until then, it is the law of the land and that is how it should be.

Not when 280 million are covered....


If that's yoru argument, government can still deny someone...what makes you think it's goign to be any "better"? In fact, I'm sure government panels will be FARRR less forgiving.

And for the sake of making you fell warm and fuzzy...you want to bankrupt our country's health care system. Awesome. Let me tell you, that will be far worse than 31 million uninsured.

My idea was just a simple reform. Do away with pre-existing conditions. Changes that could be made without adding a government option. Which will be enforced by the IRS...which has shown it has it's own agenda in the last week or so.

 

[GoIrish41]

I didn't say "no regulations"...come on.


But the amount of red tape that companies put up with, MOST of it frivilous crap, can be done away with.

And yes, the fertilizer plant was horrific....but remember....the federal government didn't do their do diligence on that one either, despite said regulations in place.

Lack of regulation wasn't the issue there, it was enforcement. Yet the opponents cry for more regulation everytime something like that happens.

And Texas is a better place to do biz than anywhere else, even with that accident. Those are the exceptions, not the rule. Red tape, while still here, isn't as harsh as say...CA.

Where I live, the oil and energy capital of the US (Woodlands TX, Exxon moves in next year) is a fantastic place to live with TONS of jobs....nobody dying in the street, no work fires or building collapse every other week.....Yet you'd never know that by watching the news or the farce that is "Gasland" (I recommend watching FrackNation)

Shame on the regulators for not enforcing the laws, but it certainly wasn't the regulators' fault that the company so outrageously ignored the regulations. And that is the argument for regulation in the first place. Without the threat of fines or closing down the plant (whether or not it was because regulators weren't doing their jobs) the company's management thumbed their noses at the law. They caused the explosion -- the regulators simply didn't catch them quickly enough to keep it from happening. I dismiss the argument of "too much regulation" because these laws didn't just appear out of thin air. They were put into place because of companies like that fertilizer plant who would put at risk not only their workers by the residents of an entire town. Regulations are put into place because greedy companies will, as a rule, do whatever is best for their own bottom line.

 

[chicago51]

I didn't say "no regulations"...come on.


But the amount of red tape that companies put up with, MOST of it frivilous crap, can be done away with.

And yes, the fertilizer plant was horrific....but remember....the federal government didn't do their do diligence on that one either, despite said regulations in place.

Lack of regulation wasn't the issue there, it was enforcement. Yet the opponents cry for more regulation everytime something like that happens.

And Texas is a better place to do biz than anywhere else, even with that accident. Those are the exceptions, not the rule. Red tape, while still here, isn't as harsh as say...CA.

Where I live, the oil and energy capital of the US (Woodlands TX, Exxon moves in next year) is a fantastic place to live with TONS of jobs....nobody dying in the street, no work fires or building collapse every other week.....Yet you'd never know that by watching the news or the farce that is "Gasland" (I recommend watching FrackNation)

What about regulations that the megacorporations lobby for that make put up all these barriers for small business? You okay with those regulations?

Citizens United ruling, and us allowing big money to buy our government, so mega corporations can rig the game has made it harder for small business to compete. Again my question was how can true conservatives not be about cleaning up campaign financing, and dealing with the lobbyist on capital hill?

By the last year the Democrats in the Senate tried to pass a bill called the Disclose Act. It wouldn't reverse Citizens United, or limit campaign contributions by individuals. However it would require full disclosure to the public for all donations over $10k. At least people would know who you were brought and paid for by rather it be by United Steel Workers, or the Koch Brothers at least Americans would know where the money is coming from.

DISCLOSE Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So while it wouldn't have taken money out of politics it would have been progress, and the Republicans filibustered it. It ended up with a majority vote (51-44, Harry Reid voted no for procedural reasons so he could bring it up again) but it didn't pass.

DISCLOSE Campaign Spending Act Blocked By Senate Republicans

 

[ACamp1900]

Do the government and its officials not ignore rules and regulations consistently themselves?? Or did I miss where our politicians and their committees were squeaky clean??? I would think the all holy and all powerful ‘fix all’ entity when it comes to oversight and regulation would have to be better than our government has been for, well,... always… no???

 

[Cackalacky]

I didn't say "no regulations"...come on.

I'm glad.

But the amount of red tape that companies put up with, MOST of it frivilous crap, can be done away with.

You might have to be specific. As I said, a large portion of my job is making sure companies have policies in place to make sure their workforce goes home at the end of the day. This is very profitable for me and the company in the end.

And yes, the fertilizer plant was horrific....but remember....the federal government didn't do their do diligence on that one either, despite said regulations in place. Lack of regulation wasn't the issue there, it was enforcement. Yet the opponents cry for more regulation everytime something like that happens.

I call BS on this. The company is at fault. They know what they were supposed to do and how much they were allowed to have on site and in one place and in what condition etc... They exhibited a willful and total disregard for the regs and public welfare.. They had enough fertilizer in one place to take down 3 city blocks in New York. Unacceptable. I worked at a sugar mill where a dust explosion destroyed the plant. Dust.... too much dust inside a sensitive area. They violated the regs in place because some other plant blew up because of too much dust in a sensitive area and the regs got written and implemented. As far as enforcement goes... if you were a policeman and I told you your patrol area was a 10 square mile area and then took away your car, what would you do. How effective would you be? That is what OSHA, the ATF and a lot of other agencies are having to deal with. No wonder they are ineffective. They are purposefully underfunded.

And Texas is a better place to do biz than anywhere else, even with that accident. Those are the exceptions, not the rule. Red tape, while still here, isn't as harsh as say...CA.

I know nothing of Texas' business acumen except that they have the highest number of minimum wage workers in the country. That does not say alot. I still don't know what red tape you are referring to.

Where I live, the oil and energy capital of the US (Woodlands TX, Exxon moves in next year) is a fantastic place to live with TONS of jobs....nobody dying in the street, no work fires or building collapse every other week.....Yet you'd never know that by watching the news or the farce that is "Gasland" (I recommend watching FrackNation

Great. Neither does South Carolina. But the oil and gas companies are examples of the ones I was speaking of in my earlier posts. You can't work for them unless you have a safe job history...they won't even allow you on the site or accept a bid from your company. They have lots of safety provisions and requirements for their workers (I guess that is the red tape maybe?). That is not saying they always get followed but I know they are in place because I helped write some of them.

 

[GoIrish41]

Not when 280 million are covered....


If that's yoru argument, government can still deny someone...what makes you think it's goign to be any "better"? In fact, I'm sure government panels will be FARRR less forgiving.

And for the sake of making you fell warm and fuzzy...you want to bankrupt our country's health care system. Awesome. Let me tell you, that will be far worse than 31 million uninsured.

My idea was just a simple reform. Do away with pre-existing conditions. Changes that could be made without adding a government option. Which will be enforced by the IRS...which has shown it has it's own agenda in the last week or so.

Your first line is where we fundamentally part ways. You are willing to let 31.5 million people suffer because the rest got theirs. And when you talk about our country becoming bankrupt, you should look no further than the existing healthcare system as the culprit. Healthcare costs rise far faster than any other costs in this country, and it will only be a matter of time before the number of uninsured far surpasses the current number. So your idea is to keep that system in place with a few tweeks. Just get rid of pre-existing contintion limitations, which will make health insurance even better for all those who already have it, but will do absolutely nothing to the 31.5 million people whose pre-existing condition is being too poor to afford health insurance.

And, as for the health panels. Private insurance companies already use them, but they use them to avoid paying claims to people who are sick or injured. The more claims they don't pay, the more money they make. The government health panels are just another form of the regulation that you seem to dread so much. The government (the one elected by the people to serve the people) will remove the practice of rejecting claims as a profit motive, but will instead make it clear what private insurance companies have to cover.

 

[GoIrish41]

Do the government and its officials not ignore rules and regulations consistently themselves?? Or did I miss where our politicians and their committees were squeaky clean??? I would think the all holy and all powerful ‘fix all’ entity when it comes to oversight and regulation would have to be better than our government has been for, well,... always… no???

The people of West, Texas didn't have a vote as to how much fertilizer was being stored in the plant. They do have a vote to determine who will represent them in government. Nobody is arguing that the efficiency or effectiveness of regulation is perfect, but without it West, Texas is what happens. Sometimes even with it.

 

[ACamp1900]

Well I'm not really arguing anything specific as much as just commenting on what feels like the overall tone of the message over the past few pages... I guess I just see it as an argument for a den of proven crooks (Like every single one of them) trying to oversee and regulate business... I'll take my chances with the percentage of business owners that are corrupted over the percentage of politicians any day...

 

[MJ12666]

The people of West, Texas didn't have a vote as to how much fertilizer was being stored in the plant. They do have a vote to determine who will represent them in government. Nobody is arguing that the efficiency or effectiveness of regulation is perfect, but without it West, Texas is what happens. Sometimes even with it.

I you truly believe that government can make us all safe with regulations, then you would also have to agree that there should be an end to civil lawsuits.

Also something to consider. Government regulators are prone to corruption (that is taking bribes to look the other way). Do you really want a society based on the old USSR system which really was no more then complete government regulation of the economy?

 

[Buster Bluth]

The people of West, Texas didn't have a vote as to how much fertilizer was being stored in the plant. They do have a vote to determine who will represent them in government. Nobody is arguing that the efficiency or effectiveness of regulation is perfect, but without it West, Texas is what happens. Sometimes even with it.

wut

 

[GoIrish41]

wut

Without regulation companies will do whatever they want to. And when they do that the only winner is their bottom line. Often that is bad news for everyone else. Probably could have been clearer.

 

[GoIrish41]

I you truly believe that government can make us all safe with regulations, then you would also have to agree that there should be an end to civil lawsuits.

Also something to consider. Government regulators are prone to corruption (that is taking bribes to look the other way). Do you really want a society based on the old USSR system which really was no more then complete government regulation of the economy?

Bit of a reach isn't it? USSR? Come on.

 

[NDFan4Life]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ZuRTUdo5V84" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Black Irish]

For those calling for more gov't regs, I just say be careful what you wish for. From what I've read on the financial crisis, there was vary little in the way of actual illegality. Then things that were going on seemed shady, but were not against the law. The same can be said of: campaign finance, health insurance practices, lobbying, etc. The smart players know how to work the system to their own benefit, usually because they have the money and connections to do so. I'll give a nod to my ideological opposite number, Chicago51, in pointing out that it's the big boys (on the right and left, I may add) that rig the game so that the little guys have a very hard time getting a foot in the door. The laws get written to keep the upstarts from having a fair shot.

And as far as this rallying cry of "get the money out of politics" so it will be cleaner, let's remember that's it's not just cash that delivers elections. If you don't believe me, just ask Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman how their respective electoral runs turned out.

 

[chicago51]

Report from inspector general on IRS targeting tea party groups.

Management Flaws at I.R.S. Cited in Tea Party Scrutiny - NYTimes.com

 

[chicago51]

Obama says watchdog report's findings on IRS 'intolerable' | Reuters

 

[chicago51]

IRS report shows why tea party scandal was almost inevitable - CSMonitor.com

ND professor comments in the article.

The whole IRS scandal raises the question about what to do with 501c4 organizations.

I am a member of Progressive Democrats of America and Organizing for Action. OFA is essentially the Obama campaign. Organizing for Action not to be confused with Organizing for America is a 501c4. I can tell you OFA is not a social welfare group they shouldn't be a 501c4 and neither should so of these other super pacs that are clearly political not advocacy groups.

 

[BobD]

I always thank veterans for their service, now I'm going to add thanking IRS agents to my routine.

Tea Party = Shady bastards.

 

[phgreek]

I always thank veterans for their service, now I'm going to add thanking IRS agents to my routine.

Tea Party = Shady bastards.

Yea...why is everyone so up in arms...its ok to violate procedures, laws, and rights when it is someone you don't agree with...

 

[GoIrish41]

For those calling for more gov't regs, I just say be careful what you wish for. From what I've read on the financial crisis, there was vary little in the way of actual illegality. Then things that were going on seemed shady, but were not against the law. The same can be said of: campaign finance, health insurance practices, lobbying, etc. The smart players know how to work the system to their own benefit, usually because they have the money and connections to do so. I'll give a nod to my ideological opposite number, Chicago51, in pointing out that it's the big boys (on the right and left, I may add) that rig the game so that the little guys have a very hard time getting a foot in the door. The laws get written to keep the upstarts from having a fair shot.

And as far as this rallying cry of "get the money out of politics" so it will be cleaner, let's remember that's it's not just cash that delivers elections. If you don't believe me, just ask Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman how their respective electoral runs turned out.

I don't think that anyone was calling for more government regs. Your example about the financial crisis goes to the point I was trying to make. When the "smart players" figure out a way to get around the system, that is when new regulations are put in place to make mere shady practices illegal. Completely agree that the system is rigged to hurt the little guy in favor of big business.

It isn't just cash that delivers elections, but cash is the primary vehicle candidates ride on the way to office. That is the rule, and there are exceptions to the rule, as you pointed out.

 

[Cackalacky]

I don't think that anyone was calling for more government regs. Your example about the financial crisis goes to the point I was trying to make. When the "smart players" figure out a way to get around the system, that is when new regulations are put in place to make mere shady practices illegal. Completely agree that the system is rigged to hurt the little guy in favor of big business.

It isn't just cash that delivers elections, but cash is the primary vehicle candidates ride on the way to office. That is the rule, and there are exceptions to the rule, as you pointed out.

That cash is also not delivered without expectations either. You think Goldman Sachs is gonna drop $8 million on a candidate(s) that is gonna target it while in congress/white house for using taxpayer money to run its derivatives operation?

Goldman Sachs: All Recipients | OpenSecrets

Here is a link to Goldman Sachs contributions. You might see a pattern. Also look at the legislation each person receiving money voted on.

Revolving Door-Previous government people now lobbying for Goldman Sachs:
47 of 51 current GS lobbyists held former government jobs.

 

[BobD]

Yea...why is everyone so up in arms...its ok to violate procedures, laws, and rights when it is someone you don't agree with...

Exactly!

 

[BobD]

Republican strategy: We've got absolutely nothing going for us, so let's try to make them look bad. Maybe we can win by default.

 

[chicago51]

New White House email: Proof there was no Benghazi cover-up?

Benghazi emails released show that there was in fact no cover up.

One down two go.

Actually the IRS and Associated Press scandals are much more concerning and deserve full investigations.

Inspector general already investigated IRS but the justice department is doing its own investigation. If the IRS does make its way to Obama, he's done. I have confidence it won't but we'll have to see it play out.

'Ineffective Management' at IRS to Blame for Tea Party Targeting, Report Finds - ABC News

As far as seizing the AP phone records I actually think Eric Holder's excuse of it being a national security issue that put Americans at risk would be a legit excuse if Americans really were at risk. I'm not sure I buy the AP reporting on successful terrorist intervention the day after it happened as a reason to ignore the first amendment. I still think Eric Holder should resign.

Then again I have a bias against Holder ever since he said this "I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy,"

I think this Huff post article says it all on Holder: Richard (RJ) Eskow: Holder Says Leak Required "Very Aggressive Action"... Bank Crimes, Not So Much