Today you're getting the most efficient balance between the actual product quality, and the cost. The government will be putting an end to that.TheCatt wrote:From another article:So that means that I can still get normal lightbulbs, but they'll use less energy? I'm ok with that, assuming a cost increase that's not disproportionate to the reduced energy cost.The new rules will go into effect in 2012, and will save up to 594 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions and save consumers up to 4 billion annually through 2042.
Standards will include decreasing electricity use by general service fluorescent lamps by 15% and incandescent reflector lamps by 25%. These lamps represent 37% and 7% of lighting energy use respectively.
But I couldn't find anything that gave more details than the above.
The First Obama Term
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Dude, isn't it obvious yet that this government's job is to change citizens' behavior, because they know best?Leisher wrote:Is there not a single reporter with the brains or balls to ask "Mr. Obama, why do you care about $4 billion dollars that consumers are putting into this country's economy? What good can come from trying to reduce that number? What gives you the right to tell consumers what kind of lamps they can use? Shouldn't you be more concerned with government spending? How much money will it cost taxpayers for you to legislate this plan?"
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
No room for more premature babies in Ontario. Send them away.
http://cp24.com/servlet....P24Home
I sure can't wait for all that free health care.
http://cp24.com/servlet....P24Home
I sure can't wait for all that free health care.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
I was reading an article about retiring to Latin American countries this past weekend. People int heir 50's were getting health insurance for $2k per year. Granted, it only covered emergencies. So what do they do for normal healthcare? They just pay for it. A doctor visit is $30.
When I studied in Mexico, almost everyone I knew when to a doctor at least once. When I went, it was $15, and the prescription he wrote was $5. (14 years ago, but still, even at 2x cost it's a bargain)
The major differences in Mexico are that a) people don't have health insurance for routine crap. They just pay for it, and b) they have lower income. The question is how much it's a or b. I don't know, but I'd sure love to give market healthcare a chance.
When I studied in Mexico, almost everyone I knew when to a doctor at least once. When I went, it was $15, and the prescription he wrote was $5. (14 years ago, but still, even at 2x cost it's a bargain)
The major differences in Mexico are that a) people don't have health insurance for routine crap. They just pay for it, and b) they have lower income. The question is how much it's a or b. I don't know, but I'd sure love to give market healthcare a chance.
It's not me, it's someone else.
-
thibodeaux
- Posts: 8120
- Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 7:32 pm
I saw this on facebook recently:
The person who wrote that works for the CDC. Now, does she REALLY think that most Americans have "lousy" healthcare? To me, "lousy healthcare" means you get poor quality medical goods and services. Really? REALLY?
Lousy healthcare is what most Americans have now. Fixing it will take a long time and a long road and surely a lot of bumper stickers from the Republicans.
The person who wrote that works for the CDC. Now, does she REALLY think that most Americans have "lousy" healthcare? To me, "lousy healthcare" means you get poor quality medical goods and services. Really? REALLY?
I said it long ago.... the fact so many people have their health insurance subsidized by their employers is taking much of the market forces out of the industry. People don't know how much procedures/visits cost. They don't have many or any options for care. Those who provide services aren't allowed to advertise their services as less expensive than a competitor (AMA rules).
So. Destroy the health insurance industry, save the health care industry. Instead our government is trying to make an even bigger health insurance industry, partially or wholly government-run. There is no way it can make the current situation better.
So. Destroy the health insurance industry, save the health care industry. Instead our government is trying to make an even bigger health insurance industry, partially or wholly government-run. There is no way it can make the current situation better.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
And now the government is going to ban one of the few over-the-counter medications that I bother with, Nyquil.
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp....2623985
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp....2623985
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
GORDON wrote:And now the government is going to ban one of the few over-the-counter medications that I bother with, Nyquil.
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp....2623985
Government experts say the maximum daily dose listed on Tylenol and dozens of other painkillers should be reduced to help curb deadly overdoses.
How did you get "ban" from that article? So they want to change numbers on some labels. Whatever, I don't really read those much anyway. You'd think they'd've better shit to spend time on, though.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Captain Non-Meddler publicly supports foreign leaders who seize control of their countries by defying their constitutions.
http://www.foxnews.com/politic....estnews
Isn't that interesting. Our President doesn't approve of crowds using violence to gain enfranchisement, but likes presidents who remain in power despite legally being told to step down.
Edited By GORDON on 1246406090
http://www.foxnews.com/politic....estnews
The U.N. General Assembly's decision to condemn the military coup in Honduras and demand the return to power of President Manuel Zelaya has created a rare incidence of near universal support for a man who has defied his nation's constitution and Congress.
But while Zelaya wins widespread support, including from President Obama as well as Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, critics in the United States are asking why the U.S. leader doesn't take a stand against clearly illegal actions by Honduras' ousted chief executive.
"Manuel Zelaya trampled the Honduran constitution by pushing for his illegal referendum to allow him to rule indefinitely, and by firing the top military official, Gen. Romeo Vasquez Velasquez, when he refused to comply with Zelaya's unconstitutional orders," said Rep. Connie Mack, R-Fla.
Zelaya, the ousted leftist leader, ignored a ruling from the Honduran Supreme Court, warnings from the military and opposition by a sizable swath of his country's population when he maneuvered to amend his country's constitution, apparently in hopes of extending his own rule
Isn't that interesting. Our President doesn't approve of crowds using violence to gain enfranchisement, but likes presidents who remain in power despite legally being told to step down.
Edited By GORDON on 1246406090
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
More details.
That Mr. Zelaya acted as if he were above the law, there is no doubt. While Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite, the power to open that door does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.
But Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. Chávez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela. The Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional, and it instructed the military not to carry out the logistics of the vote as it normally would do.
The top military commander, Gen. Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, told the president that he would have to comply. Mr. Zelaya promptly fired him. The Supreme Court ordered him reinstated. Mr. Zelaya refused.
Calculating that some critical mass of Hondurans would take his side, the president decided he would run the referendum himself. So on Thursday he led a mob that broke into the military installation where the ballots from Venezuela were being stored and then had his supporters distribute them in defiance of the Supreme Court's order.
The attorney general had already made clear that the referendum was illegal, and he further announced that he would prosecute anyone involved in carrying it out. Yesterday, Mr. Zelaya was arrested by the military and is now in exile in Costa Rica.
It remains to be seen what Mr. Zelaya's next move will be. It's not surprising that chavistas throughout the region are claiming that he was victim of a military coup. They want to hide the fact that the military was acting on a court order to defend the rule of law and the constitution, and that the Congress asserted itself for that purpose, too.
Mrs. Clinton has piled on as well. Yesterday she accused Honduras of violating "the precepts of the Interamerican Democratic Charter" and said it "should be condemned by all." Fidel Castro did just that. Mr. Chávez pledged to overthrow the new government.
Honduras is fighting back by strictly following the constitution. The Honduran Congress met in emergency session yesterday and designated its president as the interim executive as stipulated in Honduran law. It also said that presidential elections set for November will go forward. The Supreme Court later said that the military acted on its orders. It also said that when Mr. Zelaya realized that he was going to be prosecuted for his illegal behavior, he agreed to an offer to resign in exchange for safe passage out of the country. Mr. Zelaya denies it.
It's not me, it's someone else.
GORDON wrote:Captain Non-Meddler publicly supports foreign leaders who seize control of their countries by defying their constitutions.
Heh... does it surprise you that he wouldn't want this to set a precedent?
If folks start throwing elected officials out on their ass for having their constitution shit on, he's screwed.
Edited By Vince on 1246410298
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
So Catt, in your opinion, in this case is Obama acting evil, or incompetent? Either he knows the situation and doesn't care, or he doesn't know the situation and still has a public opinion about it.
Or is there some nuanced 3rd option?
Edited By GORDON on 1246410711
Or is there some nuanced 3rd option?
Edited By GORDON on 1246410711
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Vince wrote:GORDON wrote:Captain Non-Meddler publicly supports foreign leaders who seize control of their countries by defying their constitutions.
Heh... does it surprise you that he wouldn't want this to set a precedent?
If folks start throwing elected officials out on their ass for having their constitution shit on, he's screwed.
It was the absolutely first thing I thought of a week ago when it was noticed he didn't have anything to say about the situation.
Edited By GORDON on 1246410698
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
It is strange to me that he would speak out so quickly on this, yet so slowly on Iran.GORDON wrote:So Catt, in your opinion, in this case is Obama acting evil, or incompetent? Either he knows the situation and doesn't care, or he doesn't know the situation and still has a public opinion about it.
Or is there some nuanced 3rd option?
If I were to go for a 3rd way it would be: Obama is reacting to the fact that a constitutionally, democratically-elected president is being forced from office by might rather than by vote, even though elections are coming up in November, and believes that the principles of democracy should be followed, and that they outweigh whatever actions the president may have taken.
It's not me, it's someone else.
I'll buy that. I guess there's possibly nothing in their Constitution about what to do when their president goes total outlaw. Maybe they don't have an allowance for impeachment proceedings?
What would happen if Obama started shooting peeps on Pennsylvania Ave. out the Oval Office window one day, on camera? Could he be forcibly, immediately removed from office?
What would happen if Obama started shooting peeps on Pennsylvania Ave. out the Oval Office window one day, on camera? Could he be forcibly, immediately removed from office?
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."