HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » SHRED » Journal
Page: 1

SHRED

Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Hometown: Poway, CA
Current location: Leucadia, CA
Member since: Sat Nov 22, 2003, 12:17 AM
Number of posts: 20,886

Journal Archives

Remember when... "deficits don't matter"

“Debts and deficits were of no matter, no consequence, no interest to the Republican Party until Obama was elected...I find that strange given the fact that as the recession was still growing while the nation transitioned from Bush, millions of people were flooding the unemployment, food stamps and welfare rolls...and poof! Like magic we suddenly were obsessed with the debt and deficit, wild and out of control spending and the obsessive need for cuts. Didn't have anything to do with those millions of people that suddenly needed help, did it? Equally as interesting is the Republican obsession to make those cuts, er, reforms, to the very social safety net programs those millions of people fell into...And haven't quite a few Republicans openly accused those people that fell into those nets as being deliberately lazy? Willfully jobless? At fault for losing their jobs? Labeled them takers, moochers, leaches and parasites? Is there some correlation between the outward loathing of these people, the attacks on social safety nets when they discuss cuts in spending, the recession and this incessant whining over debts and deficits?”


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/shwicksdad/house-republicans-plan-shutdown_n_4089623_292028979.html

--

Great insight!!

On review...here's what WE compromised

From our side of the political spectrum (Left) we wanted this (below).
A truly Public Health Insurance program.

What we got instead was the ACA (Obamacare) which is a HUGE compromise, by comparison, that favors the private corporate sector which Republicans claim to love so much.
And they are still not happy as they have shutdown the government over it.

---




http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-faq

7% tax on employers
2% add'l tax on employees' paychecks.
no deductibles
no co-pays

Full medical, hospital, dental, vision, mental health, and long term care

A universal public system would be financed in the following way: The public funds already funneled to Medicare and Medicaid would be retained. The difference, or the gap between current public funding and what we would need for a universal health care system, would be financed by a payroll tax on employers (about 7%) and an income tax on individuals (about 2%). The payroll tax would replace all other employer expenses for employees’ health care, which would be eliminated. The income tax would take the place of all current insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket payments. For the vast majority of people, a 2% income tax is less than what they now pay for insurance premiums and out-of-pocket payments such as co-pays and deductibles, particularly if a family member has a serious illness. It is also a fair and sustainable contribution.

Currently, 47 million people have no insurance and hundreds of thousands of people with insurance are bankrupted when they have an accident or illness. Employers who currently offer no health insurance would pay more, but those who currently offer coverage would, on average, pay less. For most large employers, a payroll tax in the 7% range would mean they would pay slightly less than they currently do (about 8.5%). No employer, moreover, would gain a competitive advantage because he had scrimped on employee health benefits. And health insurance would disappear from the bargaining table between employers and employees.

Of course, the biggest change would be that everyone would have the same comprehensive health coverage, including all medical, hospital, eye care, dental care, long-term care, and mental health services. Currently, many people and businesses are paying huge premiums for insurance so full of gaps like co-payments, deductibles and uncovered services that it would be almost worthless if they were to have a serious illness.

Industrial hemp spoils the marijuana party

But...but...but...we have been told by RW'ers that it's all about "stoners" hiding their plants in feilds.



--









An industrial hemp producer says marijuana growers aren't happy about his ongoing trials across eastern Australia.

Hemp is grown for seeds, oil and fibre, and, while it belongs to the same species, is a different variety to the drug plant, marijuana.

Phil Warner from EcoFibre Industries says marijuana contains the psychoactive chemical TCH but hemp doesn't, and that makes his industrial hemp research unpopular.

He says drug growers are concerned that the pollen from the hemp will contaminate their high THC crops, reducing their virility.

"We've been pushed out of areas because the industrial hemp affects all of the open grown marijuana and depletes it. They don't like us because the pollen spread of the industrial hemp will invade the dope grown up in the bush at least five kilometres away."



http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-05/hemp-vs-marijuana/4989566

What is going to happen as Republicans enroll via the ACA exchanges...

...find comprehensive insurance at affordable rates and way better terms than they've ever had?

What happens when they realize their party has lied and fearmongered them and tried to keep them from this?

Go to Page: 1