Texas' Governor is making low level grumblings about the stimulus package. But all it will end up meaning is that we'll be very careful whether to expend the entirety of the package. We're not about to blindly saddle ourselves with future obligations.
But rejecting it on principle? Man, we've got to repay our share of the package anyways, might as well spend what we can.
I'll be interested in how Texas handles the stimulus, and later Obama's energy plan. As far as I can tell the state is not yet in recession, and since we lead the nation in wind power we could get a big boost if the upcoming energy bill has lots of money for wind.
As I understand it, the oil industry is going to be/is being hit hard, and that hurts us a lot (especially around Houston).
We're doing fine right now. $35 per bbl doesn't sound as good as $100/bbl, but when we were in triple digits our production/refinement costs were through the roof as well.
Either way it's still a lot better than $10 like it was in the early 90's.
Michele Bachmann was the one that wanted to fire up some sort of socialist witch hunt in congress. Something about sniffing out those with unamerican views.
Texas' Governor is making low level grumblings about the stimulus package. But all it will end up meaning is that we'll be very careful whether to expend the entirety of the package. We're not about to blindly saddle ourselves with future obligations.
But rejecting it on principle? Man, we've got to repay our share of the package anyways, might as well spend what we can.
I'll be interested in how Texas handles the stimulus, and later Obama's energy plan. As far as I can tell the state is not yet in recession, and since we lead the nation in wind power we could get a big boost if the upcoming energy bill has lots of money for wind.
As I understand it, the oil industry is going to be/is being hit hard, and that hurts us a lot (especially around Houston).
We're doing fine right now. $35 per bbl doesn't sound as good as $100/bbl, but when we were in triple digits our production/refinement costs were through the roof as well.
Either way it's still a lot better than $10 like it was in the early 90's.
Especially since all the refineries are cutting back for maintenance. The price we are paying at the pump is a bit higher then the price of oil reflects now.
And to the crazy comments in the previous few pages, I'll ask this question:
Do mainstream news organizations refuse to hire interns / video editors / archivists? How come I haven't seen clips of GOP members getting Obama's autograph next to them voting down the stimulus bill next to clips of them praising it ?
I'll say the same thing for Iraq funding hearings pre war, McCain in 2000 on basically his entire platform, etc. Are we limited to Youtube links and The Daily Show ???
The guy who comes out to read our meter said they would have their smart grid rolled out in three years. Is the stimulus money likely to speed that up? Jackson EMC is a pretty big organization.
Especially since all the refineries are cutting back for maintenance. The price we are paying at the pump is a bit higher then the price of oil reflects now.
And to the crazy comments in the previous few pages, I'll ask this question:
Do mainstream news organizations refuse to hire interns / video editors / archivists? How come I haven't seen clips of GOP members getting Obama's autograph next to them voting down the stimulus bill next to clips of them praising it ?
I'll say the same thing for Iraq funding hearings pre war, McCain in 2000 on basically his entire platform, etc. Are we limited to Youtube links and The Daily Show ???
Then no republican would ever go on any program not on Fox News. The fact is only a few programs have the power to really slam republicans and not get completely snubbed. The second your average program tries to corner one we'd get a metric fuckton of "durr libral mediuh!!!!" blowback.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
0
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
edited February 2009
So how much money ended up going to the states? I know I heard NJ wanted to set up wind farms as well but we're kinda broke all up ins.
Gooey what are the prospects for wind power down there?
I think it can work in Texas. A lot of Texas is very open and very flat, which is perfect for wind turbines. There are a few smaller power companies going with wind, the problem is the lack of capital in an economy like this. The market is there, and the ones who make it will be sitting on a pile of cash when the economy recovers and oil jumps back up to where it should be.
As someone who IS insured:
allow me to say DO IT NOW OBAMA.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I could really go for some insurance. I've got about ten things that are probably nothing, but maybe not. Even if I could afford the doctor visit, any treatment is out of the question.
Ok, so who is all up in Minnesota? Because one of your representatives is an idiot.
Thats the same chick that called congress unamerican or something like that. she's a complete nutter.
* the stimulus bill includes a measure to create a "rationing board" for health care, and after the bill becomes law, "your doctor will no longer be able to make your healthcare decisions with you."
Was listed under her stupidy, but yesterday my wife mentioned that something similar was talked about in their nursing classes. Were her profs just picking up Bachman's dumbness? Or is there actually some kind of thing happening where the government gets more say in how you get treatment?
I will be truly surprised if either Jindal or whoever the gov of texas actually refuse the money. Right wingers may not like it, but I'm pretty sure they would hate it even more if they still have to pay for it but get no benefit at all. Especially if they stimulus nets results (which it will, by 2010 at the very least)
WOOOO GOP!! Dont stop grandstanding! Don't think! March into irrelevance with eyes closed, fingers in your ears, and head held high.
Darkchampion3d on
Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence --Thomas Jefferson
Gooey what are the prospects for wind power down there?
I think it can work in Texas. A lot of Texas is very open and very flat, which is perfect for wind turbines. There are a few smaller power companies going with wind, the problem is the lack of capital in an economy like this. The market is there, and the ones who make it will be sitting on a pile of cash when the economy recovers and oil jumps back up to where it should be.
Wind power in Texas is beginning to expand at a crazy rate now.
As long as it's done differently from Medicaid/Medicare.
Obama wants to basically expand system that federal employees get to more folks. What it is called is irrelevant to me, as long as it lowers premiums and gives me a god damn choice besides the god awful plan my employer uses.
Darkchampion3d on
Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence --Thomas Jefferson
Gooey what are the prospects for wind power down there?
I think it can work in Texas. A lot of Texas is very open and very flat, which is perfect for wind turbines. There are a few smaller power companies going with wind, the problem is the lack of capital in an economy like this. The market is there, and the ones who make it will be sitting on a pile of cash when the economy recovers and oil jumps back up to where it should be.
Wind power in Texas is beginning to expand at a crazy rate now.
i went for a walk in my neighborhood in nw san antonio the other day and probably 1/4 of the houses we walked by have a 'we are powered by wind' placard
As long as it's done differently from Medicaid/Medicare.
Hey look, more lime.
Medicaid and Medicare are run terribly. I'm going to be displeased if we wind up with basically giant versions of that, which - as I understand them - make Canadian health care look positively efficient. But the current direction looks to be towards something less retarded.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
What makes it a national issue rather than a state one though? Don't some states already have universal healthcare policies?
The few that can afford it, yeah. The idea of a national plan is that you drive the individual costs down by getting everyone paying into the pool. You get a net gain because consumers have more spending power, and are more productive because they have less downtime.
What makes it a national issue rather than a state one though? Don't some states already have universal healthcare policies?
The few that can afford it, yeah. The idea of a national plan is that you drive the individual costs down by getting everyone paying into the pool. You get a net gain because consumers have more spending power, and are more productive because they have less downtime.
That's certainly a good point, a national pool would have a lot more weight than a states. I would think an entire state would have sufficient weight to just about dictate terms the insurance company (companies?) though. I don't know that populace in different states would have much different requirements for healthcare, so there isn't much benefit there for it being run by states. You do however get the benefit of having multiple systems being tried rather than one large monolithic one, since it's a very complicated and expensive issue.
Gooey what are the prospects for wind power down there?
I think it can work in Texas. A lot of Texas is very open and very flat, which is perfect for wind turbines. There are a few smaller power companies going with wind, the problem is the lack of capital in an economy like this. The market is there, and the ones who make it will be sitting on a pile of cash when the economy recovers and oil jumps back up to where it should be.
It totally can, if we can update our transmission system. We run into a lot of bottlenecks trying to get the power into the metropolitan areas, and revamping the transmission system is very costly.
I'm pretty sure it's an inevitable effort that we'll make though. Also, we're working on construction of a new nuclear reactor.
And Texas has a very unique electricity grid structure. Unlike most or all(?) states, all power is generated and contained within the state, and none is imported. There are some oddities with the means of ownership between transmission and generation of the power, and I don't know how that would affect the funding of new transmission lines.
What makes it a national issue rather than a state one though? Don't some states already have universal healthcare policies?
The few that can afford it, yeah. The idea of a national plan is that you drive the individual costs down by getting everyone paying into the pool. You get a net gain because consumers have more spending power, and are more productive because they have less downtime.
That's certainly a good point, a national pool would have a lot more weight than a states. I would think an entire state would have sufficient weight to just about dictate terms the insurance company (companies?) though. I don't know that populace in different states would have much different requirements for healthcare, so there isn't much benefit there for it being run by states. You do however get the benefit of having multiple systems being tried rather than one large monolithic one, since it's a very complicated and expensive issue.
Good luck keeping any insurance companies in your state when you try to push them around. Companies don't like states that try to make them do things.
A lot leave the country, but where is a health insurance company going to go?
What makes it a national issue rather than a state one though? Don't some states already have universal healthcare policies?
The few that can afford it, yeah. The idea of a national plan is that you drive the individual costs down by getting everyone paying into the pool. You get a net gain because consumers have more spending power, and are more productive because they have less downtime.
That's certainly a good point, a national pool would have a lot more weight than a states. I would think an entire state would have sufficient weight to just about dictate terms the insurance company (companies?) though. I don't know that populace in different states would have much different requirements for healthcare, so there isn't much benefit there for it being run by states. You do however get the benefit of having multiple systems being tried rather than one large monolithic one, since it's a very complicated and expensive issue.
Good luck keeping any insurance companies in your state when you try to push them around. Companies don't like states that try to make them do things.
A lot leave the country, but where is a health insurance company going to go?
I think something got lost in transmission here. Why would an insurance company close up shop in a state because they had universal coverage but not do the same if the nation had a similar policy? As long as there is room for profit, they're going to stick around.
Ok, so who is all up in Minnesota? Because one of your representatives is an idiot.
Thats the same chick that called congress unamerican or something like that. she's a complete nutter.
* the stimulus bill includes a measure to create a "rationing board" for health care, and after the bill becomes law, "your doctor will no longer be able to make your healthcare decisions with you."
Was listed under her stupidy, but yesterday my wife mentioned that something similar was talked about in their nursing classes. Were her profs just picking up Bachman's dumbness? Or is there actually some kind of thing happening where the government gets more say in how you get treatment?
It's not a rationing system. Currently any medical providers only have to prove that what they made works and potentially works better than widget mk1. Now they have to prove that not only does it work, but it is cost effective to change the old one out with the new one with a palpable benefit. Think of it as making Microsoft justify all of the 8 different editions of the same Windows OS they release. It was universally approved of just weeks ago, but then someone came up with the idea of calling it health rationing and the Republicans switched over to the buzz word rather than the policy.
What makes it a national issue rather than a state one though? Don't some states already have universal healthcare policies?
The few that can afford it, yeah. The idea of a national plan is that you drive the individual costs down by getting everyone paying into the pool. You get a net gain because consumers have more spending power, and are more productive because they have less downtime.
That's certainly a good point, a national pool would have a lot more weight than a states. I would think an entire state would have sufficient weight to just about dictate terms the insurance company (companies?) though. I don't know that populace in different states would have much different requirements for healthcare, so there isn't much benefit there for it being run by states. You do however get the benefit of having multiple systems being tried rather than one large monolithic one, since it's a very complicated and expensive issue.
Good luck keeping any insurance companies in your state when you try to push them around. Companies don't like states that try to make them do things.
A lot leave the country, but where is a health insurance company going to go?
I think something got lost in transmission here. Why would an insurance company close up shop in a state because they had universal coverage but not do the same if the nation had a similar policy? As long as there is room for profit, they're going to stick around.
States that try to dictate to companies will often send those companies to other states, taking jobs with them. But the federal government can do this because health insurance companies have nowhere else to go.
As long as it's done differently from Medicaid/Medicare.
Hey look, more lime.
Medicaid and Medicare are run terribly. I'm going to be displeased if we wind up with basically giant versions of that, which - as I understand them - make Canadian health care look positively efficient. But the current direction looks to be towards something less retarded.
As poorly as Medicaid/Medicare is run (and my job right now is in medical billing software so I unfortunately have semi-first hand knowledge of the bureaucracy of medical billing, although the private companies are intentionally worse) its actually more efficiently run than HMO's/private insurance believe it or not. This is largely due to no advertising, lobbying, marketing etc.
=============
edit
Not exactly stimulus but Obama is announcing his mortgage relief plan (using TARP funds I believe) on tv now.
What makes it a national issue rather than a state one though? Don't some states already have universal healthcare policies?
The few that can afford it, yeah. The idea of a national plan is that you drive the individual costs down by getting everyone paying into the pool. You get a net gain because consumers have more spending power, and are more productive because they have less downtime.
That's certainly a good point, a national pool would have a lot more weight than a states. I would think an entire state would have sufficient weight to just about dictate terms the insurance company (companies?) though. I don't know that populace in different states would have much different requirements for healthcare, so there isn't much benefit there for it being run by states. You do however get the benefit of having multiple systems being tried rather than one large monolithic one, since it's a very complicated and expensive issue.
Good luck keeping any insurance companies in your state when you try to push them around. Companies don't like states that try to make them do things.
A lot leave the country, but where is a health insurance company going to go?
I think something got lost in transmission here. Why would an insurance company close up shop in a state because they had universal coverage but not do the same if the nation had a similar policy? As long as there is room for profit, they're going to stick around.
States that try to dictate to companies will often send those companies to other states, taking jobs with them. But the federal government can do this because health insurance companies have nowhere else to go.
Other nations? And I still find it hard to swallow that there wouldn't be insurance companies left that would be willing to work within state guidelines. Maybe the profit is more somewhere else, but there is no reason they can't have that profit somewhere else and the slimmer margin of profit in that state as well.
What makes it a national issue rather than a state one though? Don't some states already have universal healthcare policies?
The few that can afford it, yeah. The idea of a national plan is that you drive the individual costs down by getting everyone paying into the pool. You get a net gain because consumers have more spending power, and are more productive because they have less downtime.
That's certainly a good point, a national pool would have a lot more weight than a states. I would think an entire state would have sufficient weight to just about dictate terms the insurance company (companies?) though. I don't know that populace in different states would have much different requirements for healthcare, so there isn't much benefit there for it being run by states. You do however get the benefit of having multiple systems being tried rather than one large monolithic one, since it's a very complicated and expensive issue.
Good luck keeping any insurance companies in your state when you try to push them around. Companies don't like states that try to make them do things.
A lot leave the country, but where is a health insurance company going to go?
I think something got lost in transmission here. Why would an insurance company close up shop in a state because they had universal coverage but not do the same if the nation had a similar policy? As long as there is room for profit, they're going to stick around.
States that try to dictate to companies will often send those companies to other states, taking jobs with them. But the federal government can do this because health insurance companies have nowhere else to go.
Other nations? And I still find it hard to swallow that there wouldn't be insurance companies left that would be willing to work within state guidelines. Maybe the profit is more somewhere else, but there is no reason they can't have that profit somewhere else and the slimmer margin of profit in that state as well.
I think we mean different things when we say "dictate terms."
And I still find it hard to swallow that there wouldn't be insurance companies left that would be willing to work within state guidelines. Maybe the profit is more somewhere else, but there is no reason they can't have that profit somewhere else and the slimmer margin of profit in that state as well.
I think we mean different things when we say "dictate terms."
I meant nothing more than hard bargaining, considering the strength of an entire state's business could be lost. I don't expect that the insurance companies won't still be able to turn a profit.
As long as it's done differently from Medicaid/Medicare.
Hey look, more lime.
Medicaid and Medicare are run terribly. I'm going to be displeased if we wind up with basically giant versions of that, which - as I understand them - make Canadian health care look positively efficient. But the current direction looks to be towards something less retarded.
As poorly as Medicaid/Medicare is run (and my job right now is in medical billing software so I unfortunately have semi-first hand knowledge of the bureaucracy of medical billing, although the private companies are intentionally worse) its actually more efficiently run than HMO's/private insurance believe it or not. This is largely due to no advertising, lobbying, marketing etc.
My experiences are different, though anecdote anecdote lol. My mom deals with Medicare all the time for my grandmother, and getting treatment and payment for pretty much anything is a multi-week process. Whereas under any private insurance plan I've ever had, I can get an appointment within a day or two (or same-day usually, if I'm not set on seeing my particular doctor), and payment is just a matter of a $20 copay followed by not having to worry about it.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
As long as it's done differently from Medicaid/Medicare.
Obama wants to basically expand system that federal employees get to more folks. What it is called is irrelevant to me, as long as it lowers premiums and gives me a god damn choice besides the god awful plan my employer uses.
FEHB
federal employee health benefits.
i hope he makes that cost less too since im currently paying 120 bucks a month for it...
As long as it's done differently from Medicaid/Medicare.
Obama wants to basically expand system that federal employees get to more folks. What it is called is irrelevant to me, as long as it lowers premiums and gives me a god damn choice besides the god awful plan my employer uses.
FEHB
federal employee health benefits.
i hope he makes that cost less too since im currently paying 120 bucks a month for it...
As long as it's done differently from Medicaid/Medicare.
Obama wants to basically expand system that federal employees get to more folks. What it is called is irrelevant to me, as long as it lowers premiums and gives me a god damn choice besides the god awful plan my employer uses.
FEHB
federal employee health benefits.
i hope he makes that cost less too since im currently paying 120 bucks a month for it...
That's all?
Wow.
theres a reason why people say that the government has great benfits.
Hmm, that medicare line seems much less aggressive than what I remember hearing.
I'm still waiting on the national culture change where people stop flinging all the money they can at the end of life on terminal patients to try and extend their lives by a year or two, considering that something like 40% of all healthcare costs occur in the last 6 months of life.
Posts
Thats the same chick that called congress unamerican or something like that. she's a complete nutter.
We're doing fine right now. $35 per bbl doesn't sound as good as $100/bbl, but when we were in triple digits our production/refinement costs were through the roof as well.
Either way it's still a lot better than $10 like it was in the early 90's.
Especially since all the refineries are cutting back for maintenance. The price we are paying at the pump is a bit higher then the price of oil reflects now.
And to the crazy comments in the previous few pages, I'll ask this question:
Do mainstream news organizations refuse to hire interns / video editors / archivists? How come I haven't seen clips of GOP members getting Obama's autograph next to them voting down the stimulus bill next to clips of them praising it ?
I'll say the same thing for Iraq funding hearings pre war, McCain in 2000 on basically his entire platform, etc. Are we limited to Youtube links and The Daily Show ???
Librarians harbor a terrible secret. Find it.
Then no republican would ever go on any program not on Fox News. The fact is only a few programs have the power to really slam republicans and not get completely snubbed. The second your average program tries to corner one we'd get a metric fuckton of "durr libral mediuh!!!!" blowback.
NNID: Hakkekage
I think it can work in Texas. A lot of Texas is very open and very flat, which is perfect for wind turbines. There are a few smaller power companies going with wind, the problem is the lack of capital in an economy like this. The market is there, and the ones who make it will be sitting on a pile of cash when the economy recovers and oil jumps back up to where it should be.
WOOOO GOP!! Dont stop grandstanding! Don't think! March into irrelevance with eyes closed, fingers in your ears, and head held high.
Wind power in Texas is beginning to expand at a crazy rate now.
Obama wants to basically expand system that federal employees get to more folks. What it is called is irrelevant to me, as long as it lowers premiums and gives me a god damn choice besides the god awful plan my employer uses.
i went for a walk in my neighborhood in nw san antonio the other day and probably 1/4 of the houses we walked by have a 'we are powered by wind' placard
Hey look, more lime.
Medicaid and Medicare are run terribly. I'm going to be displeased if we wind up with basically giant versions of that, which - as I understand them - make Canadian health care look positively efficient. But the current direction looks to be towards something less retarded.
It is incredibly difficult to see a god damned doctor unless your limbs are hanging off by a ligament.
The few that can afford it, yeah. The idea of a national plan is that you drive the individual costs down by getting everyone paying into the pool. You get a net gain because consumers have more spending power, and are more productive because they have less downtime.
That's certainly a good point, a national pool would have a lot more weight than a states. I would think an entire state would have sufficient weight to just about dictate terms the insurance company (companies?) though. I don't know that populace in different states would have much different requirements for healthcare, so there isn't much benefit there for it being run by states. You do however get the benefit of having multiple systems being tried rather than one large monolithic one, since it's a very complicated and expensive issue.
It totally can, if we can update our transmission system. We run into a lot of bottlenecks trying to get the power into the metropolitan areas, and revamping the transmission system is very costly.
I'm pretty sure it's an inevitable effort that we'll make though. Also, we're working on construction of a new nuclear reactor.
And Texas has a very unique electricity grid structure. Unlike most or all(?) states, all power is generated and contained within the state, and none is imported. There are some oddities with the means of ownership between transmission and generation of the power, and I don't know how that would affect the funding of new transmission lines.
Good luck keeping any insurance companies in your state when you try to push them around. Companies don't like states that try to make them do things.
A lot leave the country, but where is a health insurance company going to go?
I think something got lost in transmission here. Why would an insurance company close up shop in a state because they had universal coverage but not do the same if the nation had a similar policy? As long as there is room for profit, they're going to stick around.
It's not a rationing system. Currently any medical providers only have to prove that what they made works and potentially works better than widget mk1. Now they have to prove that not only does it work, but it is cost effective to change the old one out with the new one with a palpable benefit. Think of it as making Microsoft justify all of the 8 different editions of the same Windows OS they release. It was universally approved of just weeks ago, but then someone came up with the idea of calling it health rationing and the Republicans switched over to the buzz word rather than the policy.
States that try to dictate to companies will often send those companies to other states, taking jobs with them. But the federal government can do this because health insurance companies have nowhere else to go.
As poorly as Medicaid/Medicare is run (and my job right now is in medical billing software so I unfortunately have semi-first hand knowledge of the bureaucracy of medical billing, although the private companies are intentionally worse) its actually more efficiently run than HMO's/private insurance believe it or not. This is largely due to no advertising, lobbying, marketing etc.
=============
edit
Not exactly stimulus but Obama is announcing his mortgage relief plan (using TARP funds I believe) on tv now.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Other nations? And I still find it hard to swallow that there wouldn't be insurance companies left that would be willing to work within state guidelines. Maybe the profit is more somewhere else, but there is no reason they can't have that profit somewhere else and the slimmer margin of profit in that state as well.
I think we mean different things when we say "dictate terms."
I meant nothing more than hard bargaining, considering the strength of an entire state's business could be lost. I don't expect that the insurance companies won't still be able to turn a profit.
My experiences are different, though anecdote anecdote lol. My mom deals with Medicare all the time for my grandmother, and getting treatment and payment for pretty much anything is a multi-week process. Whereas under any private insurance plan I've ever had, I can get an appointment within a day or two (or same-day usually, if I'm not set on seeing my particular doctor), and payment is just a matter of a $20 copay followed by not having to worry about it.
FEHB
federal employee health benefits.
i hope he makes that cost less too since im currently paying 120 bucks a month for it...
That's all?
Wow.
Extrapolating that far in advance is probably ridiculous, but we have to do something to get health care costs down.
theres a reason why people say that the government has great benfits.
I'm still waiting on the national culture change where people stop flinging all the money they can at the end of life on terminal patients to try and extend their lives by a year or two, considering that something like 40% of all healthcare costs occur in the last 6 months of life.
Sure would be nice.