Santorum lost my vote. - Page 8 - Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


Current Events, News, Politics Keep the politics here.

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-17-2012, 06:56 PM   #141
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by viperormiata View Post
Probably not going to vote. Which, honestly, really depresses me.

I cannot vote for Obama. The dismantlement of our space program was a national embarrassment and the recent talks of taking away benefits for soldiers, active and retired, is disgraceful. I wanted to dig my head into the sand after he awarded the Medal of Honor to a dead soldier as if he was still alive....in front of that soldier's family and the entire 10th Mountain.
Is this in reference to the bipartisan proposal to charge $200 per year for the "Tricare for life" program to those that are retired? Or are you talking about something different?
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2012, 07:01 PM   #142
NB/VVT Connoisseur
iTrader: (23)
 
viperormiata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Key West
Posts: 6,065
Total Cats: 253
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
Is this in reference to the bipartisan proposal to charge $200 per year for the "Tricare for life" program to those that are retired? Or are you talking about something different?
It's something different. I'm talking about the indefinite suspension of all benefits. I need to see if I can relocate the exact articles, I'm sure I can find them.

More to the point, I'm sure it will never happen; but just talking about it is nerve racking.
viperormiata is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2012, 07:10 PM   #143
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by viperormiata View Post
It's something different. I'm talking about the indefinite suspension of all benefits. I need to see if I can relocate the exact articles, I'm sure I can find them.

More to the point, I'm sure it will never happen; but just talking about it is nerve racking.
I'm going to have extreme difficulty believing this without a legitimate and non-nutjob source - it's political suicide for any politician to propose this, especially in an election year, and doubly so because I can't find anything about it from googling.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2012, 07:11 PM   #144
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 4,165
Total Cats: 19
Default

I really can't see him doing that.
gearhead_318 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2012, 07:19 PM   #145
NB/VVT Connoisseur
iTrader: (23)
 
viperormiata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Key West
Posts: 6,065
Total Cats: 253
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
I'm going to have extreme difficulty believing this without a legitimate and non-nutjob source - it's political suicide for any politician to propose this, especially in an election year, and doubly so because I can't find anything about it from googling.
I'll look for them later. Like I said, it was never "proposed" just talked about. I'm not worried about too much, though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shearhead_3:16 View Post
I really can't see him doing that.
He won't be able to during his time in office, so I'm not worried about him on that subject. I do worry that something along those lines will become a present problem during my career in the military.

Regardless: "I wanted to dig my head into the sand after he awarded the Medal of Honor to a dead soldier as if he was still alive....in front of that soldier's family and the entire 10th Mountain.

That is not a man of character. That is inexcusable."

This is what broke it for me. I can't even view him as a man anymore. He's a disgrace.
viperormiata is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2012, 07:21 PM   #146
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by viperormiata View Post
I'll look for them later. Like I said, it was never "proposed" just talked about. I'm not worried about too much, though.



He won't be able to during his time in office, so I'm not worried about him on that subject. I do worry that something along those lines will become a present problem during my career in the military.

Regardless: "I wanted to dig my head into the sand after he awarded the Medal of Honor to a dead soldier as if he was still alive....in front of that soldier's family and the entire 10th Mountain.

That is not a man of character. That is inexcusable."

This is what broke it for me. I can't even view him as a man anymore. He's a disgrace.
What are you talking about, Viper?

I can't even google up anything that you've talked about, which gives me a strong hunch that you've been visiting certain sources that you shouldn't be taking seriously.

My best guess is you are referencing the Fort Drum speech, which frankly, I'm shocked that you are reacting like this to. He confused two medal of honor recipients - I mean, it's embarassing, but your reaction makes it sound like he fucked your dog, or your sister/mother/dad in the ***.

----, as I think about it, you must have been up in arms over Bush's military gaffes, right?
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2012, 07:37 PM   #147
NB/VVT Connoisseur
iTrader: (23)
 
viperormiata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Key West
Posts: 6,065
Total Cats: 253
Default

I'll PM you instead of cluttering the thread.

Edit: Just so we're clear, I have absolutely zero political ties with a "party".
viperormiata is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2012, 07:37 PM   #148
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 4,165
Total Cats: 19
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by viperormiata View Post
I'll PM you instead of cluttering the thread.
If you find it, I'd like to see it too.
gearhead_318 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2012, 01:12 PM   #149
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Perez View Post
Probably from the perception that programs which are administered by either a state or federal government tend to be (pick one or more):
  • Inefficiently / Ineptly administered (DMV, EPA, etc)
  • Wasteful (eg: $3,000 toilet seat)
  • Poorly managed and in need of constant bailing-out (Social Security)
  • Susceptible to abuse and graft (welfare, food stamps, etc)
  • Worse than the commercial alternative (public housing, public transportation, etc)
I'm not passing judgement or saying that any or all of the above are true, only that they are commonly perceived to be true, and everything in a "democratic" society is about perception.
Great points. Sadly, Social Security as an example is only in need of constant bailing out because our politicians raided the funds, and our most efficient insurance is government run.... Most of those statements may be the perception, but except for the final one, are either untrue or only partly true.

Quote:
The system we have now isn't all that great either. Private insurance, by definition, adds overhead. It has to, since people are employed by insurance companies, to say nothing of stock dividends.

Now, that overhead is tolerable when we use insurance solely for casualty mitigation, which was its original intent. Eg, we carry auto insurance in case our car is stolen or we get into a wreck, but we wouldn't dream of submitting an insurance claim for an oil change or new tires. And we carry homeowners insurance in case the house is burglarized or burns down, but we don't file homeowners claims every time we have to replace a leaky faucet or an old furnace.

In other words, insurance allows everyone to pay a little bit into a common pool that will be drawn from in the statistically unlikely event that any one single individual loses their house in a fire or has their car stolen.

The trouble is that, with healthcare, we seem to want to pass everything through an insurance company.

Case in point: several months ago I went to CVS to get a flu shot. One of the first questions they asked me was for my insurance card.

Huh? This is a $25 flu shot. Why on earth would I expect my health insurance to cover this?

The same holds true for damn near every medical procedure. I go to the doctor for checkup, and if I want I can submit that to my insurance and just pay a $40 co-pay. If I had ****, then I could go get a mammogram and the insurance would cover that. The list goes on.

And yeah, I'm aware of the argument that by covering trivial little shіt like this, the insurance company ultimately saves money by preventing me from getting pneumonia, or developing breast cancer, or whatever.

But that doesn't make the numbers work!

The problem is that if everyone expects insurance to pay for everything, then ultimately insurance "pays" for nothing. All they do is pass 100% of the costs straight back to you, along with a markup for their profit margin. It's not distributed liability anymore, it's just a middleman.


Insurance only "works" when it is reserved for catastrophic events, and everyday costs come out of pocket. If I contract spinal neurocysticercosis and wind up in the hospital for two weeks, then I'll file an insurance claim. If I get shot in the knee with an arrow and require reconstructive surgery and extensive physical therapy, then I'll file an insurance claim.

If I'm going in for a routine prostate exam, that's not something insurance is supposed to cover.



And that's why the system is "broken."
This is very true, but I would postulate that it is at least in part a result of the health insurance companies trying to continually insert themselves in at all levels of the health insurance system.

Let me use an example. In several states, they used to let people pay a cash price that was substantially lower than their posted insurance rates.

Then the insurance companies lobbied the legislature to make it illegal to do it. The bills passed. Now citizens must pay the same in cash or via insurance. Did I mention the part where the insurance companies can still negotiate down payments with the hospitals, unlike citizens?

I cannot disagree with your post, but by the same token, the situation we are in with respect to that is at least in part due to the health insurance companies actions - including them lobbying legislators to get laws passed that make them required to have.

The reason why the Republicans supported the concept of "If you don't have health insurance, you pay a fine" concept in health insurance reform for so long is tied to this (I've covered it before that it was a Republican idea, from a Republican think tank, that was supported by the Republicans for 2 decades (2007 was the last time) untill Obama created Obamacare. Then it was suddenly bad) - Obama inserted that into Obamacare to get Republican support even.

Soo...What I'm getting at is I agree with you in a general sense, but you are only looking at one side of the issue with health insurance.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2012, 02:04 PM   #150
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
hustler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,114
Total Cats: 351
Default

I love the idea that some of you think more regulation is needed for healthcare. There are some things that shouldn't be insured...particularly high-risk behavior. I see the same failed logic in flood insurance where the NFIP insures properties which are blown-over twice per decade yet we keep insuring them at artificially low rates so they can maintain an insurance policy.

I look at people like my father who is receiving free health-care since he did not plan for the rest of his life, smokes like a freight train, never exercises, eats like ----, drinks every day, and bangs anything without a condom...and tax payers are paying to keep him alive for reasons I don't understand. People like this should not be insured and I don't want my premiums to cover their risk behaviors.
hustler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2012, 02:12 PM   #151
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 4,165
Total Cats: 19
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hustler View Post
I love the idea that some of you think more regulation is needed for healthcare. There are some things that shouldn't be insured...particularly high-risk behavior.
You mean like racing cars? Riding a motorcycle? Using a fast or modified car for street use?
gearhead_318 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2012, 02:16 PM   #152
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
hustler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,114
Total Cats: 351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shearhead_3:16 View Post
You mean like racing cars? Riding a motorcycle? Using a fast or modified car for street use?
Yes, those precisely.
hustler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2012, 02:21 PM   #153
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 4,165
Total Cats: 19
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hustler View Post
Yes, those precisely.
So if you wrecked your race car and got fuked up you would refuse health insurance? Or are you saying that people who get it for free like your dad (Is it a military thing? How did he get his insurance) who exhibit high risk behavior should not be insure when they do stupid ----? That I can agree with.

Edit, just saw this:


Santorum renews vow to root out obscene pornography
gearhead_318 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2012, 02:28 PM   #154
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hustler View Post
Yes, those precisely.
I cannot agree with your argument if it is as you have stated it, Hustly.

Insurance companies and consumers should have the choice to contract high risk behavior, banning coverage of high risk behavior without a choice to get it results in staunch opposition from me.

Are you referring specifically to free health care in your earlier posts? Admittantly, I'm not certain where your regulation bit is coming from, as the most-recent-post before yours was noting that increased regulation was at fault for some of the increased costs/problems with insurance.

Last edited by blaen99; 03-18-2012 at 02:42 PM.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2012, 02:42 PM   #155
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
hustler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,114
Total Cats: 351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shearhead_3:16 View Post
So if you wrecked your race car and got fuked up you would refuse health insurance? Or are you saying that people who get it for free like your dad (Is it a military thing? How did he get his insurance) who exhibit high risk behavior should not be insure when they do stupid ----? That I can agree with.

Edit, just saw this:


Santorum renews vow to root out obscene pornography
No, I read my health-insurance policy and there is nothing that precludes coverage for something on the racetrack. I wouldn't get a policy with that preclusion. I should also note that my car is not insured on the racetrack, and my insurer is fully aware of the mods on my car.

My father complained that a health insurance policy for him was over $1000 per month. I bet a health insurance policy for a 60-year old man who doesn't smoke, drink heavily, and isn't banging -----s and vulnerable to VD is going to be cheaper than what my father was offered.
hustler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2012, 02:47 PM   #156
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
hustler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,114
Total Cats: 351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
I cannot agree with your argument if it is as you have stated it, Hustly.
I was being facetious, I don't need more regulation on healthcare, I need ala-carte coverage like I do for my car.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
Insurance companies and consumers should have the choice to contract high risk behavior, banning coverage of high risk behavior without a choice to get it results in staunch opposition from me.
I don't need coverage for STDs and AIDS because I'm not bare-backing poz-rods on the weekend, I should not have an insurance policy that covers it. Another example is how my GF is never, ever going to need prenatal care because she will never be pregnant; she should not have to pay for that coverage. If someone wants health insurance coverage for risk behavior, they should pay for it, rather than have the federal government force them to cover all conditions. I bet my coverage would be a lot cheaper if I weren't required to carry the same policy is a poz-rod bottom, homosexual, socialist, liberal, northerner.

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
Are you referring specifically to free health care in your earlier posts? Admittantly, I'm not certain where your regulation bit is coming from, as the most-recent-post before yours was noting that increased regulation was at fault for some of the increased costs/problems with insurance.
Don't be so dense.
hustler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2012, 02:47 PM   #157
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 4,165
Total Cats: 19
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hustler View Post
No, I read my health-insurance policy and there is nothing that precludes coverage for something on the racetrack. I wouldn't get a policy with that preclusion. I should also note that my car is not insured on the racetrack, and my insurer is fully aware of the mods on my car.
I know this is off topic, but what did your insurance company say when you told them your car is modified? Did they raise your rate? Will they cover the added value in the event of a non racetrack accident or theft?
gearhead_318 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2012, 02:50 PM   #158
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
hustler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,114
Total Cats: 351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shearhead_3:16 View Post
I know this is off topic, but what did your insurance company say when you told them your car is modified? Did they raise your rate? Will they cover the added value in the event of a non racetrack accident or theft?
They said "oh, you don't need a $15k theft rider, we'll just cover it." They would not give that to me in writing though so I still don't have a theft rider on the car. I will at some point though.

I've been through the policy and it appears that my green car's policy is valid and I'm also aware that filing a claim for a wreck that happens on the track is insurance fraud. This is one reason I track a Miata and not a McLaren. There are other reasons that I won't get into here.
hustler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2012, 02:52 PM   #159
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hustler View Post
I was being facetious, I don't need more regulation on healthcare, I need ala-carte coverage like I do for my car.
I don't think anyone here is seriously arguing for more regulation in health care, beyond the not-so-subtle prodding of trying to raise the debate level a bit above "But healthcare is going to bankrupt us!"

Quote:
I don't need coverage for STDs and AIDS because I'm not bare-backing poz-rods on the weekend, I should not have an insurance policy that covers it. Another example is how my GF is never, ever going to need prenatal care because she will never be pregnant; she should not have to pay for that coverage. If someone wants health insurance coverage for risk behavior, they should pay for it, rather than have the federal government force them to cover all conditions.

Don't be so dense.
Could you elaborate on what specifically you are referring to here? Or is it meant as a generalized statement that is incredibly difficult to try to discuss?

As an example, the federal government does not force the cable companies to provide their channels in packages, and actually has been trying to force them to offer their service a la carte for a long time. Are you trying to say that it's the federal government forcing health insurance companies to not provide a la carte plans?
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2012, 03:00 PM   #160
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
hustler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,114
Total Cats: 351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
Could you elaborate on what specifically you are referring to here? Or is it meant as a generalized statement that is incredibly difficult to try to discuss?

As an example, the federal government does not force the cable companies to provide their channels in packages, and actually has been trying to force them to offer their service a la carte for a long time. Are you trying to say that it's the federal government forcing health insurance companies to not provide a la carte plans?
One of the many reasons health-insurance costs so much is because of extremely expensive chronic conditions. HIV treatment is a huge monthly cost that I don't need coverage for, it's that simple. However, HIV is one of the many illnesses that must be covered because precluding coverage of this illness is consider "discrimination". This logic applies to many other behavior related diseases that I will never contract because I don't engage in most behavior related vulnerabilities like unprotected gay sex, tobacco, chemical addiction, and others.
hustler is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
MS PNP requires reading and following directions??? satisfied MEGAsquirt 141 10-06-2015 11:44 AM
WTB HPDE miata - Texas Voltwings Cars for sale/trade 0 09-27-2015 07:40 PM
MS3 Basic Connection Issues EErockMiata MEGAsquirt 6 09-24-2015 10:49 AM
Oregon New Guy Wino Meet and Greet 7 08-29-2015 03:26 PM
Canon Sd750 Brand new. Slidin'Miata916 Miata parts for sale/trade 1 07-01-2007 07:23 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:29 PM.