tzor wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:And how, exactly does this passage apply to me?
I pointed out that it didn't apply to you but to progressives in general. Have you ever noticed that progressives love to bind people to regulations (and never fund any of the mandates they create) but never ever apply those regulations to themselves?
Nomore than any other group, and often far less.
tzor wrote:[Just look at the health care debate. You think any of those progressives who want the "public option" would ever consider using it? No, they have the Cadillac of Cadillac Health Care plans. Do you think they would want to tax their own plans when they want to tax Cadillac Health Care plans? I do not think so.
Well, you would be wrong, for the most part.
To refer specifically to congress, they have access to the FEderal Government Employee health plans. It is a set of plans with many options from which to choose. Some offer pretty comprehensive coverage for a higher cost, some offer lower coverage for less. They are good plans, but mostly not the kind of "cadillac" plans that many unions and higher executives get. Congress does have access to some plans that are a bit better than those to which the average employee has access.
HOWEVER, the whole point of taxing the cadillac plans is to begin to move from an employer-based payment system to an employee-based payment system. This would benefit everyone, particularly those getting those fancy plans. Those plans skew the whole healthcare equation. The idea is that employers should pay slightly better wages, rather than healthcare as a part of the "wage" package.
You are wrong for other reasons, but I don't think you are really interested in that... and it has been pretty well covered in the health care threads already.
tzor wrote:[
Consider how much CO2 was generated by those progressives going to the global warming summit. Yet they want to keep poor people in Africa from using generators to keep electricity going in their small hospitals.
Not even close to the truth.
In truth, they want those hospitals to get solar, wind or other SUSTAINABLE technology.. and so do most people in those remote areas, given a choice, because getting gasoline is less reliable than sunlight. They know this first hand.
I mentioned Ford earlier. I go into this in the thread "what's wrong with capitalism" in more detail, but briefly... let's say that there were rules prohibiting use of gasoline as fuel, because of the known polluting impacts. Would it have meant no automobiles. Maybe, but more likely it would have given rise to earlier invention of engines that use alternative fuels. Not necessarily "high tech" stuff like solar, but simpler things like chicken manure or perhaps ethanol. Now, I am not saying that would have been a cost-free solution by any means. (get into this a bit more in that other thread). However, why is it that so many are so willing to say "technology will fix it" when it comes to solving things like pollution, but not when it comes to forcing companies and people to find lower impact technologies from the beginning.
One irony here is that most of the fixes suggested for Global warming will actually solve a whole host of problems. Not everything, new problems will always arise. However, by turning our backs, in the US, on even really and truly looking for solutions, we are cutting ourselves off from the real technological future.
China may be complaining about having to comply with these "restrictive" CO2 requirements, etc... but in the mean time, they are investing very heavily in wind and other alternative energies. Ironically enough, they are quickly moving to become one of the more sustainable nations on Earth. It does not take a genius to put these things together. WE are the fools, not they. WE have been the fools for a long while.
](./images/smilies/eusa_wall.gif "Brick wall")
Where did anyone ever say that the earth would be colder? More snow does not mean colder.
