Aaron Strife
Banned
Don't worry, Romney could still win PA and MI, because independents LOVE him!
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
And he just doubled down on that position on CNN.
That's about wrap it for him.
I have to say, I'm starting to think that Santorum is the one person who actually believes in all the Republican talking points in earnest.
Edit: And he just said that IDF has no women in combat roles, which is wrong.
LOL, dumbass.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
They aren't framing it as a birth control or women's rights issue, but as a constitutional issue.
And as I said, the people who would actually buy that this was some kind of Obama War on Religion were the same group who would not have voted for him anyway. Do you honestly believe that there is some huge contingent outside of the GOP base who believes that Obama is hellbent on destroying religious freedom? Please.
He does. That's what makes him absolutely terrifying.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
IDF also allows openly gay men and women. I wonder what he thinks about that.
Blitzer actually asked him about that (while acknowledging the wrong fact about women, so yeah, even when nail a guy nicely, he got to put some stupid on it).
Santorum seemed perplexed.
Edit: nice, google is now reporting primaries results when you search for a candidate name.
speculawyer
Member
Rasmussen is probably exaggerating the gap so they can claim a great surge when the GOP convention happens. But I'm thinking Obama is starting to look pretty safe. Romney is the best they have an the more people learn about him, they less they like him.
Rocket Scientist
Member
If someone has this video of him, please, please, I beg of you! I need to see his reaction to this.
Seriously, I'd love to watch his expression as brain tries to reconcile that fact with his belief that Israel is God's chosen kingdom that can do no wrong.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
I feel like this is true (both your first point and second). Rasmussen isn't very accurate regardless.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Because they made an issue out of something that 80% of the country doesn't even agree with them on. They wasted time talking about a social issue that the country doesn't even side with them on and not talk about jobs and the economy.
And then the White House within a week comes up with a reasonable compromise and shuts down the issue without blemish. I have a feeling that the GOP may be feeling the pressure of the economy getting better at a quicker pace than they expected and are now trying to find something to trash Obama on.
It was on CNN, 2pm PST, first item of the hour in The Situation Room, I think it was the second hour of the show.
http://situationroom.blogs.cnn.com/...ins-opposition-to-women-in-combat/?hpt=sr_mid
Aaron Strife
Banned
They do seem to be rigging the results in Santorum's favor lately (he does better in state polls of OH/FL than Romney does), so I definitely think they're pushing an agenda by having Romney down so badly. They always have the main not-Romney perform better for a week or two.
The birth control controversy was entirely a media invention, and the White House put out a reasonable compromise while maintaining their core policy. I think it would have been wrong for Obama to get stuck on this issue when, fuck man, it's not even an issue.
Rocket Scientist
Member
Thank you!
Question, I see in other politically themed threads Kosmo is still posting, but I haven't seen him here lately. Is he avoiding this thread because you guys were too hard on him?
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Coming soon: Nutrition labels for health insurance
Posted by Sarah Kliff at 02:56 PM ET, 02/09/2012
See that? Thats what your health insurance brochure is going to look like starting Sept. 23, 2012. Earlier today, the White House finalized a key consumer-oriented provision of the health reform law: Standardized labels for health insurance plans. Think of them as nutrition facts for a health insurance plan that outline a health plans deductible, out-of-pocket limits and costs for visits to the emergency room or primary care doctor. What you see above is one part of a four-page document that insurance companies will have to provide to potential subscribers. You can see the full thing here.
These labels have been in the works for over a year now and, in the past month or so, got caught in some tussling between the insurance industry and consumer advocates. Most of it was about when the labels kick in and what information they will include. In todays final regulation, the big thing is probably the implementation date: Consumers wanted the labels to come online as soon as possible; insurers lobbied for a January 2014 start date.
HHS sided with the consumers, and the labels will come online in September 2012, early enough to kick in before many open enrollment periods this fall. Im already hearing insurance industry sources raise this timeline as their biggest concern: Theyre not sure if they can meet the deadline.
As for the information, that got slightly pared back. The summary no longer contains information on a health plans premium, although the administration argues thats easily available elsewhere. People get premium information, they will have that, Steve Larsen, director of the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, told reporters this morning. The goal of this provision was to focus on coverage, benefits and how they interact.
The administration also pared back some information on the sample cost of a given course of medical treatment, such as having a baby or managing diabetes. Insurance companies only need to provide two examples now, rather than three.
Consumer groups that were panicking last month about big changes are now pretty happy with the final product. And in about seven months, American consumers will get a chance to decide what they think about it, too.
##################
Thoughts on the health care labels? Honestly I thought all companies did this, but I guess I was just lucky the insurance I've had in the past and present had this information.
I can't imagine not having this information.
Posted by Sarah Kliff at 02:56 PM ET, 02/09/2012
See that? Thats what your health insurance brochure is going to look like starting Sept. 23, 2012. Earlier today, the White House finalized a key consumer-oriented provision of the health reform law: Standardized labels for health insurance plans. Think of them as nutrition facts for a health insurance plan that outline a health plans deductible, out-of-pocket limits and costs for visits to the emergency room or primary care doctor. What you see above is one part of a four-page document that insurance companies will have to provide to potential subscribers. You can see the full thing here.
These labels have been in the works for over a year now and, in the past month or so, got caught in some tussling between the insurance industry and consumer advocates. Most of it was about when the labels kick in and what information they will include. In todays final regulation, the big thing is probably the implementation date: Consumers wanted the labels to come online as soon as possible; insurers lobbied for a January 2014 start date.
HHS sided with the consumers, and the labels will come online in September 2012, early enough to kick in before many open enrollment periods this fall. Im already hearing insurance industry sources raise this timeline as their biggest concern: Theyre not sure if they can meet the deadline.
As for the information, that got slightly pared back. The summary no longer contains information on a health plans premium, although the administration argues thats easily available elsewhere. People get premium information, they will have that, Steve Larsen, director of the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, told reporters this morning. The goal of this provision was to focus on coverage, benefits and how they interact.
The administration also pared back some information on the sample cost of a given course of medical treatment, such as having a baby or managing diabetes. Insurance companies only need to provide two examples now, rather than three.
Consumer groups that were panicking last month about big changes are now pretty happy with the final product. And in about seven months, American consumers will get a chance to decide what they think about it, too.
##################
Thoughts on the health care labels? Honestly I thought all companies did this, but I guess I was just lucky the insurance I've had in the past and present had this information.
I can't imagine not having this information.
It's probably just because it's in the subforum. I haven't been checking this thread either.
Looks good to me, not perfect, but a massive step in the right direction.
And fuck the insurance industry for fighting against this.
Now let's do it for credit cards and banks.
Rocket Scientist
Member
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
I agree. I don't even know why the insurance companies even fought this.
RustyNails
Member
Fox News Poll:
Obama 47 Romney 42
Obama 50 Santorum 38
FL
Obama 47 Romney 44
Obama 47 Santorum 46
Gallup Obama Approval rating
Approve 48 Disapprove 46
Obama 47 Romney 42
Obama 50 Santorum 38
FL
Obama 47 Romney 44
Obama 47 Santorum 46
Gallup Obama Approval rating
Approve 48 Disapprove 46
Ghost_Protocol
Member
Holy shit
Callista Gingrich CPAC Speech: "Newt's been in and out of more sandtraps than I've ever seen" (talking about golfcoughaffaircough)
Callista Gingrich CPAC Speech: "Newt's been in and out of more sandtraps than I've ever seen" (talking about golfcoughaffaircough)
Just think how conflicted you will be in 10 years when you are ardently defending his legacy against conservatives that are still trying to portray him as a socialist.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
I feel dirty saying this but something about her is hot. Perhaps its the Stepford Wife in her.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
I must say, I really dislike your avatar due to the crazy post-processing done to it.
I would also ask as to what the president should do with the government health programs? In their current states, they are untenable money holes. Since either side is unable to push for the sufficient amount of significant tax increases to pay for them, cuts are necessary.
Either raise taxes, cut defense, cut subsides etc. to pay for them or completely nationalize health care. You don't just cut the programs that people desperately need. That's what a shitty Democrat would do, which is what I'm angry about. Though really it's just that on top of all of the other ways he's a shitty Democrat that's broken the camel's back.
cooljeanius
Member
Occupy CPAC protests were fun
Ghost_Protocol
Member
I thought so too for about a millisecond, then I came to my senses. She looks like an android.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
I am all for nationalizing health care, but in lieu of that, there is not much he can do.
He could advocate cutting hundreds of billions in other parts of the budget (in defense, in his god damn drone wars) instead of these programs.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
they are cutting billions out of defense. Take a look at that budget builder thing that they NY Times had a few months back, it is pretty damn stacked to the brim.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
I know =D
In 10 years we'll probably be longing for 'democrat' as 'left' as Obama, much like many do for Clinton now. This downward spiral to the right is truly horrifying.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Coming soon: Nutrition labels for health insurance
Posted by Sarah Kliff at 02:56 PM ET, 02/09/2012
See that? Thats what your health insurance brochure is going to look like starting Sept. 23, 2012. Earlier today, the White House finalized a key consumer-oriented provision of the health reform law: Standardized labels for health insurance plans. Think of them as nutrition facts for a health insurance plan that outline a health plans deductible, out-of-pocket limits and costs for visits to the emergency room or primary care doctor. What you see above is one part of a four-page document that insurance companies will have to provide to potential subscribers. You can see the full thing here.
These labels have been in the works for over a year now and, in the past month or so, got caught in some tussling between the insurance industry and consumer advocates. Most of it was about when the labels kick in and what information they will include. In todays final regulation, the big thing is probably the implementation date: Consumers wanted the labels to come online as soon as possible; insurers lobbied for a January 2014 start date.
HHS sided with the consumers, and the labels will come online in September 2012, early enough to kick in before many open enrollment periods this fall. Im already hearing insurance industry sources raise this timeline as their biggest concern: Theyre not sure if they can meet the deadline.
As for the information, that got slightly pared back. The summary no longer contains information on a health plans premium, although the administration argues thats easily available elsewhere. People get premium information, they will have that, Steve Larsen, director of the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, told reporters this morning. The goal of this provision was to focus on coverage, benefits and how they interact.
The administration also pared back some information on the sample cost of a given course of medical treatment, such as having a baby or managing diabetes. Insurance companies only need to provide two examples now, rather than three.
Consumer groups that were panicking last month about big changes are now pretty happy with the final product. And in about seven months, American consumers will get a chance to decide what they think about it, too.
##################
Thoughts on the health care labels? Honestly I thought all companies did this, but I guess I was just lucky the insurance I've had in the past and present had this information.
I can't imagine not having this information.
A standardized label is much needed! I had to look for new insurance lately and it was a pain in the ass to compare some of them.
Well, unlike some people that will go unnamed, I had faith in the Chairman the entire time.
So I'm putting together a paper on the federal budget, and I'm looking at the CBO figures on government spending, specifically table F-9 on this page: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/appendixf.shtml
So Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are pretty straightforward. Income Security includes unemployment insurance, earned income and child tax credits, food stamps, family support, child nutrition, and foster care. Other Retirement and Disability seems straightforward.
Then we have "Other Programs." This section increased from $129 billion in 2008 to $374 billion in 2009. Does anyone know what is included in that? I'm having trouble finding this information.
So Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are pretty straightforward. Income Security includes unemployment insurance, earned income and child tax credits, food stamps, family support, child nutrition, and foster care. Other Retirement and Disability seems straightforward.
Then we have "Other Programs." This section increased from $129 billion in 2008 to $374 billion in 2009. Does anyone know what is included in that? I'm having trouble finding this information.
Byakuya769
Member
Rasmussen? Are we sure they aren't trying to sell a "We need Santorum" narrative?
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Obama's reelection campaign slush fund? \talkradio
Byakuya769
Member
I don't think Obama would pull the welfare reform shit that Clinton did. I think Healthcare Reform was based on seeing what Clinton failed to enact and being more cautious, I wouldn't be so quick to say that Clinton was absolutely to the left of Obama.
Looking at past budget numbers makes me sad.
In 2000, we spent 3.0% of GDP on defense. In 2009, 4.6%.
In 2000, Social Security and Medicare were 6.3% of GDP. In 2009, 8.5%. In that same period, Medicaid went from 1.2 to 1.8% of GDP.
So those four items went from 10.5% of GDP to 14.7%. It is very rare for tax revenue to ever exceed 19% of GDP.
In 2000, there were 35 million Americans of retirement age, representing 12.4% of the population. In 2010, that number had increased to 40.3 million, representing 13% of the population. Only about a 4.8% increase in percentage of the overall population, yet there was a 17% increase in Social Security spending and a 59% increase in Medicare spending (Medicare Part D?).
Get the fuck out with this shit. That's the total budget. I'm looking specifically for a breakdown of mandatory spending. Don't act dickish and pretend this was some absurdly simple question and then post something that doesn't answer the question. I know the fuck how to find the total federal budget.
Edit: Not to mention that your pie chart has the amazing explanatory "Unemployment/Welfare/Other Mandatory Spending" as one of its slices.
In 2000, we spent 3.0% of GDP on defense. In 2009, 4.6%.
In 2000, Social Security and Medicare were 6.3% of GDP. In 2009, 8.5%. In that same period, Medicaid went from 1.2 to 1.8% of GDP.
So those four items went from 10.5% of GDP to 14.7%. It is very rare for tax revenue to ever exceed 19% of GDP.
In 2000, there were 35 million Americans of retirement age, representing 12.4% of the population. In 2010, that number had increased to 40.3 million, representing 13% of the population. Only about a 4.8% increase in percentage of the overall population, yet there was a 17% increase in Social Security spending and a 59% increase in Medicare spending (Medicare Part D?).
Get the fuck out with this shit. That's the total budget. I'm looking specifically for a breakdown of mandatory spending. Don't act dickish and pretend this was some absurdly simple question and then post something that doesn't answer the question. I know the fuck how to find the total federal budget.
Edit: Not to mention that your pie chart has the amazing explanatory "Unemployment/Welfare/Other Mandatory Spending" as one of its slices.
Bill Maher said the same thing on tonight's show.
This is a good recommendation. I was trying to think of a place that serves as a good primer, and came up empty. The reason is, I never got one - I just started reading a few sites and began picking things up from there.
Ezra Klein's Wonkblog is a good source as well. And I check the Bloomberg economic calendar every day, which is invaluable; it's my first stop every week day morning. It provides a report on each economic release of the day, how that fared against expectations, some historical context, and a definition of the measure. Today's entry on the trade deficit is a good example. Click on "why investors care" at the end for more detail.
Between Calculated Risk, Wonkblog, and the Bloomberg site, you'll be picking up on a lot each day.
I don't know if you're really getting an accurate portrayal by comparing two separate data points. Especially considering the economic realities (which drives budgetary decisions) of both those given years. It's probably better to take 3-4 consecutive year chunks and compare those. I'm sure the point would still be the same, but it would be a more accurate portrayal.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked