|
| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
Dave Starr
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
Demeralda schreef:
It should be, it's my post. My thoughts.
My reference to Zinn and Chomsky are purely in relation to the motivations for war: oil.
Go watch waterboarding. Read the CIA guy's own account, which was published just last week in the NY Times and the Washington Post.
NON SEQUITUR. 9/11 doesn't mean we just torture anyone we want! It's pretty convenient when there's no risk you'll ever be a POW.
I find it ironic that this war has cost us more American lives than 9/11 did. Bloody brilliant. As my friend who recently returned from Afghanistan puts it, "If this is supporting the troops, I'd hate to see what happens if they didn't..."
And again, America's loss of moral leadership because of issues like this is the great tragedy of my generation.
Chomsky, Zinn, the Times & the Post are notoriously biased toward the liberals.
Ban you document how much money from iraqi oil is going into Bush's pocket?
Waterboarding is extremely uncomfortable. For torture, try this. Handcuff a person's wrists behind their back. Tie a rope to the handcuffs, hoist the person off the floor & let them hang there for a few hours. That's only one of the things that was done to an acquaintance of mine while he was a "guest" of Ho Chi Minh for several years. |
_________________
I used to care, but I take a pill for that now.
Pushing buttons sure can be fun.
When a lion wants to go somewhere, he doesn’t worry about how many hyenas are in the way.
Paddle faster, I hear banjos. |
|
Wed Dec 19, 2007 12:26 pm |
|
|
Demeralda
F L I N T O I D
|
Exactly. It was illegal, and the world knew it was wrong. But just think how much worse it might have been if the Geneva conventions didn't exist at all?
That's my worry going forward. We've lost respect out there, it's going to be a free-for-all on any soldiers of the future.
Waterboarding is worse, by the way. They force you to drown, save you, drown you again. You'll crack in under 10 minutes. |
|
|
|
Wed Dec 19, 2007 3:10 pm |
|
|
Demeralda
F L I N T O I D
|
| Oh, and on oil. I didn't say a word about Bush profiting personally. I said that the point of the war is to control the oil. Or maybe I should say to control SOME oil. Basically we can't afford not to have a very tight grip on the economics and politics of that area, all because of the OIL. It's about having a say. |
|
|
|
Wed Dec 19, 2007 3:12 pm |
|
|
00SL2
F L I N T O I D
|
Editorial from The Ann Arbor News:
Health insurance bills need Senate scrutiny
Will Blue Cross gain at public's expense?
Thursday, December 27, 2007
The Michigan Senate should throw up a stop sign on health insurance legislation that would significantly change and raise rates for people who pay for their own coverage. The House allowed the legislation to zoom through like a toboggan shoved down a Teflon hill.
Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan - the state's largest health insurer - crafted the bills that rewrite rate-setting, oversight and coverage rules for individual health insurance plans. They conveniently also expand profit-making options for Blue Cross subsidiaries.
Those are significant changes and need to be thoroughly vetted to determine what's best for the public. Two weeks after being introduced, the package of four bills (5282-5285) breezed through the House in October with scant opposition or opportunity for public scrutiny. The first two bills passed by votes of 89-17 and 90-16, respectively; the second two by 84-22 votes.
Given the impact the legislation could have on consumers and competition in Michigan's insurance market, state senators should see that these bills get the attention they deserve.
Blue Cross provides or manages coverage for 4.7 million people. That's about 70 percent of the health policies in the state. It's also the insurer of last resort - required by state law to cover anyone who can pay the premiums. That's a provision relied upon by those who can't get coverage from other insurers. Blue Cross enjoys nonprofit, tax-exempt status in Michigan for taking on that responsibility. Those tax breaks amounted to $82 million last year.
The proposed legislation would let Blue Cross act more like its for-profit competitors, but retain its tax-exempt status. Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox and other opponents says Blue Cross should not be allowed to have it both ways. They are right.
Among other things, the bills would:
# Eliminate the state insurance commissioner's ability to set Blue Cross rates and end customers' and the attorney general's role in challenging rate hikes.
# Allow Blue Cross to drop its one-size-fits all rating policy and charge different rates in different parts of the state, taking age and illness into consideration.
# Allow Blue Cross to wait 12 months, instead of the current six, to provide coverage for people with pre-existing conditions.
# Create a guaranteed insurance pool - run by Blue Cross - but funded by all health insurance companies in Michigan. The money would help subsidize the expense of insuring high-risk individuals.
# Let the Accident Fund, a for-profit Blue Cross subsidiary that sells workers compensation insurance, also offer auto, property and casualty insurance.
Blue Cross' share of the state's individual policy market is not huge - about 132,000 members - but it is growing as more companies drop health coverage and job losses and buyouts force more people to buy their own health coverage. The self-insured market is expected to jump from 6 percent to as much as 25 percent of insurance policies in five to seven years.
Blue Cross says it lost $100 million on individual health policies last year and needs to stop the losses. But it is by no means in a financial death spiral. On the contrary, the company has amassed a $2.8 billion - yes, that's billion - surplus and has been buying up for-profit subsidiaries. It has spent $365 million since 2005 to buy four insurance companies.
Blue Cross insists the bills are needed to level the playing field with commercial insurers. Critics contend the measures will allow Blue Cross to control the individual insurance market, force other insurers to help subsidize policies for people they don't cover and lead to rate hikes.
The substantive changes being pushed by Blue Cross warrant a lot more discussion, analysis, public input and due diligence on the part of lawmakers.
Senate Health Policy Committee chairman Tom George's decision to take up the bills after the new year and hold several hearings is a good one. There is no responsible reason for a rush job on these proposals.
Blue Cross is sitting on a pile of surplus cash. The nonprofit company and "our'' representatives in Lansing should consider proposals to give customers a refund or rate cut, before measures designed to increase profits.
The lack of critical review of the Blue Cross bills by lawmakers in the House is astounding. The state's senators must give these bills the careful attention that was sorely lacking by their colleagues.
The Grand Rapids Press
Source:
http://www.mlive.com/columns/aanews/index.ssf?/base/news-1/1198770076160770.xml&coll=2&thispage=1 |
|
|
|
Fri Dec 28, 2007 12:44 am |
|
|
Dave Starr
F L I N T O I D
|
| I've been told many tiles that the insurance lobby owns the State legislature. |
_________________
I used to care, but I take a pill for that now.
Pushing buttons sure can be fun.
When a lion wants to go somewhere, he doesn’t worry about how many hyenas are in the way.
Paddle faster, I hear banjos. |
|
|
Fri Dec 28, 2007 8:41 am |
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
