- #526
WhoWee
- 219
- 0
Char. Limit said:I don't know about you, but where I am, it was about 3.00 per gallon. Which it's about now. So good for Obama!
It's $3.50 to approaching $4.00 in metro areas this week.
Char. Limit said:I don't know about you, but where I am, it was about 3.00 per gallon. Which it's about now. So good for Obama!
Number Nine said:The "contraceptive thing", I think, is more of an issue for religious leaders than religious voters. It seems, for instance, that the majority of catholics support the contraception mandate (e.g. this poll). Others have found similar results.
Please do source that quote, by the way.
EDIT: I found it. He said...
Which is objectively true, so I can't understand why anyone would take issue with it. "Muslim country" in this instance is clearly referring to "a country with Muslims in it". Anyone who attempts to present this as some sort of affront or persecution towards Christianity is distorting the statement so radically that it almost has to be a deliberate, strategic, malicious lie.
WhoWee said:The point is evangelicals are not going to flock to President Obama because (as turbo stated) "At least Obama is a conventional Christian."
Number Nine said:Granted, but evangelicals are an overwhelmingly conservative population anyway, so it's not a terribly devastating loss (incidentally, white protestants are about evenly split on the contraceptive issue as well).
WhoWee said:The issue isn't contraception - it's about the Government exerting influence over a church.
The real issue with contraceptives is why should an insurance policy pay for birth control - it will raise all or of premiums. Before anyone says pay now or later - the norm is to add maternity to your coverage before you need it - the premiums increase is by and large an offset against the future claim.
Number Nine said:And as I have pointed out, the majority of catholics and close to half of white protestants support the contraception mandate. This is nothing new; similar laws have been on and off the books for years, it only became controversial when Obama became involved (opposing contraception has always been a losing battle, but the issue happens to fit in well with Obama's supposed "War on Christianitytm", so religious leaders are willing to oppose it this election season).
The government is not exerting influence over a church, it's exerting influence over an employer. The claim that the church officials oppose the plan because it forced the church to pay for contraception is demonstrably false, since they continued to oppose the plan even when Obama agreed to compromise and exempt the church from the policy. The problem the church has with the policy is the idea that somewhere, someone is using contraception against their wishes.
russ_watters said:I don't see how that graph addresses that issue at all.
Char. Limit said:I don't know about you, but where I am, it was about 3.00 per gallon. Which it's about now. So good for Obama!
No, i certainly didn't. You said:lisab said:Then you must have missed the part of the graph that shows Romney losing support of Independents to Obama.
Since Romney isn't running against Obama, he can't currently get the independent vote from Obama. He can only get the independent vote from Santorum. Your graph doesn't say if he is or isn't getting the independent vote from Santorum.The graph was in response to WhoWee's assumption that since far-right voters don't seem to be warming up to Romney, he will get the Independent vote.
russ_watters said:No, i certainly didn't. You said: Since Romney isn't running against Obama, he can't currently get the independent vote from Obama. He can only get the independent vote from Santorum. Your graph doesn't say if he is or isn't getting the independent vote from Santorum.
You are concluding that the graph says that Romney can't win independent votes from Obama, but it doesn't since Romney isn't currently courting Obama-leaning independent voters!
mheslep said:US avg price was $3.52 at the pump on Monday, making $4.50 a 27% increase. Iranian hot war with Israel is the event most talking about increasing the price, though I expect the recent increase over the last couple months is already partially pricing in that possibility, that and the take away of the KXL pipeline future expectations. So yes prices have about doubled since Obama took office. That's good for him?
I seriously doubt that is the case.SixNein said:On the other hand, gas prices will become more and more an issue for the United States and the world. We have almost certainly reached peak production on oil, ...
He can stop cancelling pipelines for one thing, and otherwise stay out the way. No chance of that though.But I don't know how much any President will be able to do about it.
mheslep said:I seriously doubt that is the case.
December N. Dakota was 534 thousand bbs per day.
He can stop cancelling pipelines for one thing, and otherwise stay out the way. No chance of that though.
Because the use of newer technology has increased production 500% in the last three years, and that geology exists in many other places.SixNein said:Why would you seriously doubt it?
The Oil Drum? A peak oil agenda blog?
Which are i) falling, ii) a change of subject from production, iii) is continuing off topic of at least Presidential roles (my fault for pursuing).Before you get too worked up over the 534k figure, you might want too look at consumption rates:
mheslep said:Because the use of newer technology has increased production 500% in the last three years, and that geology exists in many other places.
https://www.citigroupgeo.com/pdf/SEUNHGJJ.pdfThe belief that global oilproduction has peaked, or is on the cusp of doing so, has underpinned much of crudeoil’s decade-long rally (setting aside the 2008 sell-off).
.
.
That pattern looks set to change mainly because of the new shale oil plays in the US.
http://blogs.wsj.com/source/2012/02/17/citigroup-says-peak-oil-is-dead/Despite this optimism, it’s a fair bet that not everyone will be convinced. Indeed, there is good reason to be skeptical that the world’s oil production can be forever buoyed by new technology. This is the fact that, year in year out, oil production from existing areas like the North Sea or Alaska declines steadily, meaning the industry must run just to stand still.
That's my take on him. too. Unfortunately, the GOP can't come up with anything better, absent a brokered convention. If you don't like Obama, suck it up for the next 4 years., because we don't have a choice.ThomasT said:I've been reading the comments in this thread. Romney still seems like the Mittbot to me. The wedding cake figurine. The Ken doll. The really rich guy with the used car salesman personality and depth. I really think that he's on a basic ego trip, and should not be taken seriously as a candidate for the presidency. Not that that will necessarily count against him in his quest for the presidency. Just that I wouldn't vote for him.
ThomasT said:I've been reading the comments in this thread. Romney still seems like the Mittbot to me. The wedding cake figurine. The Ken doll. The really rich guy with the used car salesman personality and depth. I really think that he's on a basic ego trip, and should not be taken seriously as a candidate for the presidency. Not that that will necessarily count against him in his quest for the presidency. Just that I wouldn't vote for him.
I think we want, or should want, intellectually sophisticated candidates for chief executive who're sincerely interested in improving America, and indeed the world, and all that that entails, even if it entails going against certain elements of the status quo. Which, imho, it does.WhoWee said:I guess it's hard to compete with a community organizer personality? However,don't we want the Chief Executive of the US to be an experienced executive - not "campaigner in chief"?
ThomasT said:I think we want, or should want, intellectually sophisticated candidates for chief executive who're sincerely interested in improving America, and indeed the world, and all that that entails, even if it entails going against certain elements of the status quo. Which, imho, it does.
Romney's not, imho, that sort of candidate. I currently believe that a Romney presidency would be pretty much business as usual. Which, imho, isn't acceptable. America can, and should, imho, do better than that.
Not that a Romney presidency would be disastrous. Just not particularly focused on positive change. There are, it seems to me, some rather obvious problems with the American political, corporate, and financial sectors, and I get the impression that Romney isn't interested in even considering these problems as problems, much less leading the way to actually doing something about them.
WhoWee said:The issue isn't contraception - it's about the Government exerting influence over a church.
The real issue with contraceptives is why should an insurance policy pay for birth control - it will raise all or of premiums. Before anyone says pay now or later - the norm is to add maternity to your coverage before you need it - the premiums increase is by and large an offset against the future claim.
BobG said:Only if you assume the consequence of no birth control is the timing of a set number of kids. If no birth control means you wind up having more kids than you wanted, then birth control saves the insurance company money.
From the insurance company's perspective, I think the issue would be whether free contraceptives or the lack of free contraceptives would really influence behavior. If employees stop using contraceptives because they have to pay for them themselves, then insurance premiums should increase for policies that don't provide free contraceptives. If contraceptives are cheap enough that having to pay for them themselves doesn't affect employee behavior, then insurance premiums should decrease for policies that don't provide free contraceptives.
WhoWee said:Insurance is the transference of risk - not a maintenance agreement.
Insurance is the transference of risk - not a maintenance agreement. Car insurance doesn't pay for oil changes. If you choose not to change your oil or maintain the correct level - you might destroy your motor - also not covered by the car insurance.
ParticleGrl said:Bad analogy to health insurance- if car insurance DID cover engine damage, it would be in their interest to cover oil changes.
mheslep said:Yes perhaps so but not from insurance companies please. Let them provide ... insurance.
WhoWee said:There are policies that do extend coverage for motor and drive train - failure to change your oil (personal responsibility) voids coverage.
BobG said:If the health insurance didn't cover birth control, could failure to purchase birth control on their own void their coverage if they get pregnant? If so, then failure to cover contraceptives would definitely reduce the cost of health insurance.
Facetious, perhaps, but it's really hard to compare health insurance to other types of insurance when health insurance typically covers planned events, such as pregnancy. If it were purely insurance against unplanned sickness, accidents, etc, then I guess many more people would be delaying childbirth one way or another - or doctors/hospitals would raise the rates for covered events even higher to cover the losses they were absorbing when people who can't afford kids have kids anyway.
WhoWee said:Many individual health plans offer maternity as a rider - added on to the basic coverage for additional premium. It's not unusual for the premiums to equal the cost of the event over 24-30 months - basically a set aside.
My kids were born in Japan. I had health insurance from the Japanese company I worked for, but it did not cover pregnancy and birth unless there were complications. The company paid me a bonus for having the children which covered most of the expense. However, my daughter was born a little after midnight Sunday morning after 17 hours of labor. The hospital charged an additional $1000 for the Sunday delivery.Alfi said:I'm Canadian. I have no idea what my daughter cost me.
Alfi said:I understand the thought, You can save it or they can save it for you.
... but, can you please plug in some dollar values.
I'm Canadian. I have no idea what my daughter cost me.
Other than regular OHIP payments, I received no bill. ( perhaps a few minor ones .. )
So I'm just curious.
WhoWee said:Today is the big day in MI and AZ. Romney is not happy with the robo-calls attempting to attract Democrats to vote against him.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...gan-robocalls/2012/02/27/gIQAIbgceR_blog.html
While not the dirtiest trick of all time - IMO - it might strengthen support for Romney with the Republican base.
skeptic2 said:If Republicans weren't so cheap as to put Obama's name on the ballot so they could get taxpayer funding, they wouldn't have to worry about crossover voting.