The economy did pretty well under GWBush with a Republican controlled congress.It wasn't until the Dems took control of both houses of congress, the housing bubble collapsed and the economy required huge taxpayer funded bailouts to avert the next great depression..
There, completed that thought for you.
FTFY
So you're saying that there was already a housing bubble, and that somehow, the Dems taking control of both houses caused it to collapse? That's your argument? The previous 12 years, when the Republicans were running Congress, and that bubble was building, had nothing to do with it?
Please link to actual facts, not GW statement that it is. If you bother to actual fact check, you will note in order to for that statement to even be technically correct*, it only applies to a very specific 5 months. It's cherry picking.
Hmm.. In some respects, I agree with your observations. I think electing Nancy Pelosi as speaker was a huge mistake in '06. Her rhetoric, shallow partisan talking points, ignorance (in the literal meaning of the word), and contempt for the opposition are rivaled perhaps only by Sarah Palin.
This I definitely agree with. I can't stand Pelosi either. She was a horrible choice. I'm fairly sure that anyone in the position would draw the fire of the Republicans, but she just invites it, and I have no desire to defend her.
The CRA had nothing, period, at all to do with the collapse at all.
Not all mortgages had to be issued under the CRA, as the Federal government was encouraging and mandating that banks make bad affirmative-action loans on their own, and requiring that securities backed by these mortgages be given 'AAA' ratings by the "officially recognized" ratings agencies.
Encouraging them how? Requiring that they be given AAA rating? What law made that requirement?
Oh, I never said that Republicans didn't lie. Only that this particular type of lie seems to be a trademark Democrat lie, the one that suggest that if the Republican doesn't want to spend as much as the Democrat that the Republican is cutting spending even if in fact spending is increasing.
So you think Republicans are somehow above using that exact same type of lie against Democrats on things like law enforcement or prisons or any other Republican favorite?
I don't mean to be overly harsh, but you sound like a little kid whining for attention. Your representatives don't just represent you. They represent a hell of a lot of other people with different concerns and problems than you. Expecting them to implement only things that benefit you is ridiculous. Of course you should vote for whoever is likely to help you more, but you're being ridiculously naive when you say things like, "And I want my elected officials to listen to me when I say that I don't want that." A lot of other people may want exactly that.
Not harsh at all, that is exactly the right criticism. My reps do represent a number of people. My belief and understanding of our system is that our representatives should be focusing on meeting the expressed desires of their constituents. If our system were truly egalitarian, the end result of so many voices expressing their desires would be some kind of fair compromise that meets societies needs in a utilitarian way.
My concern about the health care debate was that so many political personalities viewed the bill as a personal agenda. Something that they wanted to complete as a legacy to future generations. So much so that they failed to hear or outright ignored the expressed desires of a lot of people. The bill was forced through the legislative process because it was politically expedient to do so, not because it was complete or ready.
I agree that they rushed things, and I also think they ended up making too many concessions to the insurance industry. One of the problems with taking a slower approach is that it gives lobbyists and those who oppose on some ideological grounds more time to come up with smear campaigns to confuse the public about the bill by throwing so many lies out that nobody is sure of what the facts are. Things like the death panels bullshit and how you will have to go to a government bureaucrat before you can see your doctor, etc. Then we end up getting nowhere.
Very rarely - both parties are highly corporatist more than anything else. This one Congress has a little ability of doing something differently, but probably won't get much done.
How do you figure they have the ability, let alone the willingness, to do anything differently this time around? We keep electing the same damn people from the same damn parties to do the same damn thing they always do. The Tea Party made some different noises early on, but they were quickly taken over by the Republicans anyway, so it's pretty much moot. While some of their principles were good, their actual implementation ideas were unbelievably vague. As much talk as there has been from Republicans about cutting spending, they haven't been willing or able to actually say how they'd do it.
I don't have a problem criticizing someone for sticking to his principles when his principles are wrong. That's not inconsistent at all.
They went and tried to carry out the things they promised when campaigning. That's what they were elected to do. Sure, you didn't vote for it, but maligning them for trying to do what they said they were going to do is just childish.
Regarding Republican health care ideas, you may be right, but there is no promise made about "Obamacare" that was even remotely believable and the millions of people (including me) who have seen significant increases in insurance premiums comprise plenty of empirical evidence. Obamacare hasn't even properly started yet and already it's broken all its promises.
They went far too easy on the insurance industry, allowing them to jack up rates in the period before the bill takes effect. That's just one more example in a long list of examples of them taking actions that are either shortsighted, extremely naive, or possibly corrupt (I'm not sure which it is really), that have allowed various industries to screw the rest of us over. That's the worst part about this whole thing. What I'm really afraid of now is that the Republicans will repeal the bill, leaving the premium increases untouched, and ensuring that people will still get dropped from their plans when they get sick, people with pre-existing conditions still won't be able to get insurance, and the whole system will remain stupidly expensive while the rest of us continue to pay through the nose for the emergency care for all those people who can't or don't get insurance.
Republican health care ideas might have lead to some savings in some areas, but they aren't going to fix the real problems.
A perspective (that happens to be mine) is that the only real problem is the cost.
I don't care about providing universal coverage for all. I don't care about mandating coverage. I care about my own healthcare costs. From this perspective, I expect my elected officials to champion my interests. The idea being that if you get 100 senators and 435 representatives all looking out for the expressed interests of their constituents you will eventually get a compromised piece of functioning legislation.
Instead, what we got was a self serving piece of garbage intended to leave a "Democratic Legacy" shrouded in some pseudo altruistic nonsense. We got a ridiculous amalgamation of pet projects and wishful thinking that commits American taxpayers to picking up the insurance and medical costs of the uninsured. I don't want that. And I want my elected officials to listen to me when I say that I don't want that.
This was my issue with the healthcare bill. Cost, and lack of consideration for the people that will be bearing the brunt of the increased costs.
I don't mean to be overly harsh, but you sound like a little kid whining for attention. Your representatives don't just represent you. They represent a hell of a lot of other people with different concerns and problems than you. Expecting them to implement only things that benefit you is ridiculous. Of course you should vote for whoever is likely to help you more, but you're being ridiculously naive when you say things like, "And I want my elected officials to listen to me when I say that I don't want that." A lot of other people may want exactly that.
We got a ridiculous amalgamation of pet projects and wishful thinking that commits American taxpayers to picking up the insurance and medical costs of the uninsured.
We already pay the cost of the uninsured. We don't turn people away from emergency rooms, which is where people without health care insurance inevitably end up. Those costs get passed on to the rest of us through taxes and increases in health care costs, which result in higher insurance premiums for those of us with insurance. The problem is that this system is about the least efficient system you could devise, and produces the worst outcomes for all involved. We pay ridiculously high emergency care costs for people who couldn't get much cheaper preventative care, and therefore ended up in the emergency room, having gotten more sick and having a much worse time of it than if they were able to get regular care.
The health care bill tries to get as many of these people covered as possible, which gives them access to much cheaper routine and preventative care, and gives people who couldn't get insurance due to pre-existing conditions the ability to get it again. Basically I don't see your problem with this. There are things I don't like about it too, and I think it'll need some adjusting over time, but I think it's a step in the right direction. The Republican plans would still leave people who already have problems without the ability to get any insurance, and allow insurance companies to keep dropping people when they get sick. That's no improvement at all.
Republican health care ideas might have lead to some savings in some areas
Please cite a single Republican health care idea. No, really, I'm still waiting to hear one... and "No" is not an idea.
They do have some ideas, and over 160 Republican amendments were included in the health care bill. Allowing health care insurance to be sold across state lines is one of their ideas that didn't make it.
Republicans get demonized plenty for sticking to their principles "Party of No", "Partisan". Funny thing is, I elect my representatives with the expectation that they will in fact be partisan i.e. stick to their principles.
So what's with all the whining about the Dems then? They were elected fair and square and were trying to stick to their principles, as you say their constituents should expect. Why the double standard?
It wasn't necessarily about sticking to principles, it was doing it in such a high-and-mighty we-know-better-than-you manner that the Dems were doing it.
And, like it or not, Americans are center-right, and don't tend to like many pushes left.
Cry more. You think the Republicans are the slightest bit different when they're in charge? Are you twelve years old or what?
Its Liberal math. Awhile back you would see things like the republicans would propose a 4% increase in spending on school lunch programs then the democrats would propose a 7% increase and say the republicans wanted to cut spending 3% (I think that was during Regan's term in office so the numbers are from memory and likely lack precision). More recently, during the 2008 elections then Governor Sarah Palin was accused of cutting state funding of Special Olympics. Reality was the funding went from $25,000 under her predecessor to $50,000 in her budgets. The AK Special Olympics then requested $1,000,000 (the wanted to build a training center or something) which was denied and the Liberals went off on how Palin cut Special Olympics funding even though it only increased while she was Governor.
Never heard of these specific incidents, but if you've paid any attention at all to the campaigns over the last couple months, you'd see that both sides lie like hell about each other. This is not a liberal or conservative thing. Politicians are just liars. By painting it as a liberal thing, you're just showing your blindness to what's really going on.
You mean the 2008-2009 where the Dems controlled Congress? That one? I'll be glad to blame the ones in charge at the time.
Funny. Now maybe you can explain precisely what the Democrats managed to pass in those two years that caused a complete economic meltdown. Somehow I don't think you're going to find a real answer for that, because that's not what actually happened.
Not really. The mandate was never on the table, and that was pretty much a deal killer for ANY conservative.
Most of the "seeking input" was done my Obama, true, but there was NEVER any done from the Dems in the Senate or House - remember all the "closed door" sessions after a particular promise from Pelosi to have everything on CSPAN and out in the open?
Didn't happen. There were a few bones thrown our way, but there was NO HSA expansion (actually contracted); VERY little in the way of high-deductible plans; NO ability to cross state lines to get a different health care service (which, admittedly, could be done at the state level). It was also comprehensive and ridiculously long, rather than dealing with one issue at a time.
And all we've heard from Republicans in recent weeks is how they're not going to compromise on their principles, yet Democrats are demonized for trying to stick to theirs. Nice.
Republican health care ideas might have lead to some savings in some areas, but they aren't going to fix the real problems.
By his logic, it should be fine for companies to dump tons of pollution into rivers with no legal consequence, because then the market will take care of it, right?
So, what you're saying by your logic is that you want a nanny state where those in power create a bunch of laws that dictate every last thing you can and cannot do. Hope you like to walk everywhere, because if you drive or ride in ANY other mode of transportation (including horses), you're polluting the "rivers" yourself.
Remember MTBE? Left wingers wanted that in all gasoline, because it made gas burn more completely, hence "good for the environment" . Well the shit is in our water supply now, and it is a dangerous chemical that is persistent in ground water. People do evil shit all the time, sometimes even without knowing it. Looking back MTBE was lame ass stupid idea, and some people knew it. But it was MANDATED by law, the very regulation you think we all should follow blindly.
Or did I get it wrong?
You can probably come up with other examples as well. The problem is that there are a shit-ton more examples of unregulated industry doing evil shit than there are of government screwups.
And you've received it. The affected customers are getting refunds. Verizon paid $25,000,000 to the US Treasury. I'm sorry if that isn't good enough for you.
So where's the proof from them that they actually know these supposedly long-unknowable facts about the overcharges? If they're as incompetent as you're implying, then I don't see how we can have any confidence at all in their ability to determine an accurate figure.
A bunch of blah blah blah and then "...I'm glad to have you on our side, 'cause I agree with you. Leave your game alone. The people that put together these video games are artists in their own right. If you're gonna start saying that video games are raunchy, then how the hell do you leave cable television alone?"
While I agree when it comes to just speech, I don't agree with him when it comes to actions. By his logic, it should be fine for companies to dump tons of pollution into rivers with no legal consequence, because then the market will take care of it, right? Except that that river really only matters to the people who depend on it, and even if every one of them boycotted that company, they could still do just fine selling to the rest of the country and the world. It also implies that there's a way for people to get accurate and timely information about what companies are polluting, and that doesn't happen. Then multiply this by the number of other possible transgressions a company can make, and it quickly becomes obvious that the market will not be able to handle it, because there's too much information and no good way to get it to the people who need it in a way they can easily understand. Which is why we need agencies specifically tasked with monitoring and handling these issues. Even then they have a hard time keeping up, but at least something gets done most of the time. We just need to make sure these agencies do their job and don't get overzealous and overstep their bounds, and that they don't get co-opted by those who they're overseeing, a-la the Minerals Management Service.
Your entire argument is that they couldn't tell the difference, but suddenly with this settlement, they know exactly who and how much?
This is the third or forth time you've implied that they aren't acting in good faith with regards to these refunds. Do you have any evidence of this or do you simply believe in "guilty until proven innocent" for corporate transgressions?
Nothing else they've done in this situation can be construed as "in good faith". They didn't even bother to warn their customers, why should we take them at face value? I'm asking for accountability, not assurances. You don't seem to understand the difference. You said they couldn't tell what charges were legit or not. We already know they're guilty of overcharging for years and not telling anyone. I'm saying let them prove that they actually know who and how much they overcharged, since it seemed to be such a huge mystery to them. That's called accountability. What you're suggesting is that we let them throw out a number and just accept it. In what universe would that idea fly? Maybe I can convince the IRS that my underpayments were just an oversight and I'll pay them what I think I owe them. No need to actually verify anything.
Exactly how much proof do you need?
I want proof that this was a deliberate effort on Verizon's part to screw people over. You can't offer such proof because you don't have it. Your main point of contention seems to be the fact that they never notified their customers about this issue and that somehow proves fraud. You have no timeline for when management became aware of the problem nor do you have a timeline for when the problem was fixed. It would seem to me that you would need that information before you can level a fraud charge based on the lack of notification.
So your theory is that they were unaware of the problem for all those years until they got sued? Wow. I'm surprised we don't hear more stories of Verizon execs accidently stabbing themselves in the eye with their forks. Your theory calls for them to be dangerously retarded. I wonder if they're aware they work for a large corporation, or if they just sit in their offices playing with markers and post-it notes.
If your best excuse for them is that they are so unimaginably incompetent that they went for years hearing these complaints from their customers, but yet were completely unaware that they had a problem, then I really can't argue with you further. I find that excuse ridiculous, but then I don't share your bizarre worldview where corporations are so impeachably honest in all their dealings that to even question them is some sort of heresy. Good luck with that.
I just want to see accountability from corporations, which is seriously lacking, which we've seen in case after case for years.
What kind of "accountability" do you think is called for here? They refunded the money that people were incorrectly charged. They paid an eight digit fine for their transgressions. What more should happen?
When it comes to accountability, how about proof that they actually know who they overcharged and how much? Your entire argument is that they couldn't tell the difference, but suddenly with this settlement, they know exactly who and how much? All too often the punishments for things like this are smaller than the profits made through them, and that doesn't even consider the fact that they got to keep the money for several years. That's a lot of time for investment returns.
At some level, someone decided not to tell anyone about these overcharges.
Another charge for which you offer zero proof. Yawn.
Exactly how much proof do you need? Which point are you disputing?
They overcharged millions of customers
At some point, they realized they had a billing problem because thousands of errors had been reported
Somebody, at some level of management knew about this problem
Nobody, at any level, ever warned their customers
So you must be claiming one or more of the following things:
They didn't overcharge
They never realized they had a problem, despite all the complaints
The problem was never brought to the attention of anyone in management
They warned their customers about the problem
I'm just not seeing how any of those are possible.
I'm at a loss to understand why you think this was deliberate fraud, other than your ideology and hatred of all things corporate.
Now who's engaged in baseless accusations? I don't hate all things corporate. I work for a large corporation! I just want to see accountability from corporations, which is seriously lacking, which we've seen in case after case for years.
You assume that "they" had any clue what was going on. Ever worked for a large corporation? Do you honestly believe this problem was on management's radar at the beginning? You have a handful of customers that are complaining about a $1.99 charge. The vast majority of those charges WERE legitimate (data usage for application downloads and web browsing).
I have, and I do, and I have friends and relatives that do as well. It still doesn't make sense that they didn't know this was going on. If it took them more than a year to realize it (which I consider to be ridiculously long, especially when customers were calling in repeatedly about these charges), they still went years longer without telling anyone as they continued to do it. The excuses you're making for them just don't make sense. At some level, someone decided not to tell anyone about these overcharges. We can speculate about when and by whom that decision was made, but Verizon is responsible for the decision not to warn their customers that they were incapable of determining the correct charge for their customers.
First of all, if they couldn't determine which were legitimate and which were not back then, how are they suddenly able to do it now I wonder?
Let's assume that you're right about that. If they couldn't tell who to charge and who not to charge, then they sure as hell should have warned their customers. They didn't. They just kept the money for years and said nothing. There's no way that that's not fraud. You say I don't have proof, but the proof is precisely the fact that they kept it under wraps. It's plain as day that they didn't even make an attempt to do the right thing. Your moral compass is just so fucked up you can't seem to see it. Give me one good reason why they didn't warn their customers that they couldn't tell who to charge and who not to charge and that people needed to check their bills? In what fucked up moral system is that ok?
I've just disputed your claims that they committed fraud.
No, you've utterly failed to explain how knowingly keeping money from illegitimate charges against millions of customers for several years without saying anything to them about it is not fraud. It doesn't matter that they paid it back years later after they got sued by the FCC. That's like saying that robbing a bank isn't a big deal as long as you give the money back after the cops catch you.
I said nothing of the kind, all I said was that it's your responsibility to review your bill for accuracy.
What does that have to do with anything? You're trying to pin the blame on Verizon's customers. Millions of them got overcharged and Verizon didn't say a damn thing about it for years. You're really straining to try to make them seem innocent on this one when it's plain as day that they didn't do the right thing. Honesty is the right thing. When you're taking money from people that isn't rightfully yours, and you know it, that's stealing. That they continued to do this for years without telling anyone is just wrong. You can try to split hairs all you want, but anyone with any sense of ethical behavior knows that this is wrong.
Meanwhile we only have their word to go on that they're refunding the proper amounts to everyone that should get a refund
If you think they are lying you have a remedy through a civil lawsuit and the discovery process. Otherwise it's just another unproven accusation.
First, I didn't make an accusation there. Second, it's a true statement. And finally, such a civil suit would take years and more money than I'll see in a lifetime to have any hope of success. You're deluded.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget the unions. Especially the public sector ones.
You're aware that the Democrats mostly lost this election, right? I don't think the unions can expect much of a return.
The economy did pretty well under GWBush with a Republican controlled congress. It wasn't until the Dems took control of both houses of congress, the housing bubble collapsed and the economy required huge taxpayer funded bailouts to avert the next great depression..
There, completed that thought for you.
FTFY
So you're saying that there was already a housing bubble, and that somehow, the Dems taking control of both houses caused it to collapse? That's your argument? The previous 12 years, when the Republicans were running Congress, and that bubble was building, had nothing to do with it?
Please link to actual facts, not GW statement that it is. If you bother to actual fact check, you will note in order to for that statement to even be technically correct*, it only applies to a very specific 5 months. It's cherry picking.
Link: http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp
Where's your link, Mr Please-link-to-actual-facts?
What, exactly, is that link supposed to prove?
Hmm.. In some respects, I agree with your observations. I think electing Nancy Pelosi as speaker was a huge mistake in '06. Her rhetoric, shallow partisan talking points, ignorance (in the literal meaning of the word), and contempt for the opposition are rivaled perhaps only by Sarah Palin.
This I definitely agree with. I can't stand Pelosi either. She was a horrible choice. I'm fairly sure that anyone in the position would draw the fire of the Republicans, but she just invites it, and I have no desire to defend her.
Not all mortgages had to be issued under the CRA, as the Federal government was encouraging and mandating that banks make bad affirmative-action loans on their own, and requiring that securities backed by these mortgages be given 'AAA' ratings by the "officially recognized" ratings agencies.
Encouraging them how? Requiring that they be given AAA rating? What law made that requirement?
Oh, I never said that Republicans didn't lie. Only that this particular type of lie seems to be a trademark Democrat lie, the one that suggest that if the Republican doesn't want to spend as much as the Democrat that the Republican is cutting spending even if in fact spending is increasing.
So you think Republicans are somehow above using that exact same type of lie against Democrats on things like law enforcement or prisons or any other Republican favorite?
I don't mean to be overly harsh, but you sound like a little kid whining for attention. Your representatives don't just represent you. They represent a hell of a lot of other people with different concerns and problems than you. Expecting them to implement only things that benefit you is ridiculous. Of course you should vote for whoever is likely to help you more, but you're being ridiculously naive when you say things like, "And I want my elected officials to listen to me when I say that I don't want that." A lot of other people may want exactly that.
Not harsh at all, that is exactly the right criticism. My reps do represent a number of people. My belief and understanding of our system is that our representatives should be focusing on meeting the expressed desires of their constituents. If our system were truly egalitarian, the end result of so many voices expressing their desires would be some kind of fair compromise that meets societies needs in a utilitarian way.
My concern about the health care debate was that so many political personalities viewed the bill as a personal agenda. Something that they wanted to complete as a legacy to future generations. So much so that they failed to hear or outright ignored the expressed desires of a lot of people. The bill was forced through the legislative process because it was politically expedient to do so, not because it was complete or ready.
I agree that they rushed things, and I also think they ended up making too many concessions to the insurance industry. One of the problems with taking a slower approach is that it gives lobbyists and those who oppose on some ideological grounds more time to come up with smear campaigns to confuse the public about the bill by throwing so many lies out that nobody is sure of what the facts are. Things like the death panels bullshit and how you will have to go to a government bureaucrat before you can see your doctor, etc. Then we end up getting nowhere.
Very rarely - both parties are highly corporatist more than anything else. This one Congress has a little ability of doing something differently, but probably won't get much done.
How do you figure they have the ability, let alone the willingness, to do anything differently this time around? We keep electing the same damn people from the same damn parties to do the same damn thing they always do. The Tea Party made some different noises early on, but they were quickly taken over by the Republicans anyway, so it's pretty much moot. While some of their principles were good, their actual implementation ideas were unbelievably vague. As much talk as there has been from Republicans about cutting spending, they haven't been willing or able to actually say how they'd do it.
I don't have a problem criticizing someone for sticking to his principles when his principles are wrong. That's not inconsistent at all.
They went and tried to carry out the things they promised when campaigning. That's what they were elected to do. Sure, you didn't vote for it, but maligning them for trying to do what they said they were going to do is just childish.
Regarding Republican health care ideas, you may be right, but there is no promise made about "Obamacare" that was even remotely believable and the millions of people (including me) who have seen significant increases in insurance premiums comprise plenty of empirical evidence. Obamacare hasn't even properly started yet and already it's broken all its promises.
They went far too easy on the insurance industry, allowing them to jack up rates in the period before the bill takes effect. That's just one more example in a long list of examples of them taking actions that are either shortsighted, extremely naive, or possibly corrupt (I'm not sure which it is really), that have allowed various industries to screw the rest of us over. That's the worst part about this whole thing. What I'm really afraid of now is that the Republicans will repeal the bill, leaving the premium increases untouched, and ensuring that people will still get dropped from their plans when they get sick, people with pre-existing conditions still won't be able to get insurance, and the whole system will remain stupidly expensive while the rest of us continue to pay through the nose for the emergency care for all those people who can't or don't get insurance.
Republican health care ideas might have lead to some savings in some areas, but they aren't going to fix the real problems.
A perspective (that happens to be mine) is that the only real problem is the cost.
I don't care about providing universal coverage for all. I don't care about mandating coverage. I care about my own healthcare costs. From this perspective, I expect my elected officials to champion my interests. The idea being that if you get 100 senators and 435 representatives all looking out for the expressed interests of their constituents you will eventually get a compromised piece of functioning legislation.
Instead, what we got was a self serving piece of garbage intended to leave a "Democratic Legacy" shrouded in some pseudo altruistic nonsense. We got a ridiculous amalgamation of pet projects and wishful thinking that commits American taxpayers to picking up the insurance and medical costs of the uninsured. I don't want that. And I want my elected officials to listen to me when I say that I don't want that.
This was my issue with the healthcare bill. Cost, and lack of consideration for the people that will be bearing the brunt of the increased costs.
I don't mean to be overly harsh, but you sound like a little kid whining for attention. Your representatives don't just represent you. They represent a hell of a lot of other people with different concerns and problems than you. Expecting them to implement only things that benefit you is ridiculous. Of course you should vote for whoever is likely to help you more, but you're being ridiculously naive when you say things like, "And I want my elected officials to listen to me when I say that I don't want that." A lot of other people may want exactly that.
We got a ridiculous amalgamation of pet projects and wishful thinking that commits American taxpayers to picking up the insurance and medical costs of the uninsured.
We already pay the cost of the uninsured. We don't turn people away from emergency rooms, which is where people without health care insurance inevitably end up. Those costs get passed on to the rest of us through taxes and increases in health care costs, which result in higher insurance premiums for those of us with insurance. The problem is that this system is about the least efficient system you could devise, and produces the worst outcomes for all involved. We pay ridiculously high emergency care costs for people who couldn't get much cheaper preventative care, and therefore ended up in the emergency room, having gotten more sick and having a much worse time of it than if they were able to get regular care.
The health care bill tries to get as many of these people covered as possible, which gives them access to much cheaper routine and preventative care, and gives people who couldn't get insurance due to pre-existing conditions the ability to get it again. Basically I don't see your problem with this. There are things I don't like about it too, and I think it'll need some adjusting over time, but I think it's a step in the right direction. The Republican plans would still leave people who already have problems without the ability to get any insurance, and allow insurance companies to keep dropping people when they get sick. That's no improvement at all.
Republican health care ideas might have lead to some savings in some areas
Please cite a single Republican health care idea. No, really, I'm still waiting to hear one... and "No" is not an idea.
They do have some ideas, and over 160 Republican amendments were included in the health care bill. Allowing health care insurance to be sold across state lines is one of their ideas that didn't make it.
Republicans get demonized plenty for sticking to their principles "Party of No", "Partisan". Funny thing is, I elect my representatives with the expectation that they will in fact be partisan i.e. stick to their principles.
So what's with all the whining about the Dems then? They were elected fair and square and were trying to stick to their principles, as you say their constituents should expect. Why the double standard?
It wasn't necessarily about sticking to principles, it was doing it in such a high-and-mighty we-know-better-than-you manner that the Dems were doing it. And, like it or not, Americans are center-right, and don't tend to like many pushes left.
Cry more. You think the Republicans are the slightest bit different when they're in charge? Are you twelve years old or what?
Its Liberal math. Awhile back you would see things like the republicans would propose a 4% increase in spending on school lunch programs then the democrats would propose a 7% increase and say the republicans wanted to cut spending 3% (I think that was during Regan's term in office so the numbers are from memory and likely lack precision). More recently, during the 2008 elections then Governor Sarah Palin was accused of cutting state funding of Special Olympics. Reality was the funding went from $25,000 under her predecessor to $50,000 in her budgets. The AK Special Olympics then requested $1,000,000 (the wanted to build a training center or something) which was denied and the Liberals went off on how Palin cut Special Olympics funding even though it only increased while she was Governor.
Never heard of these specific incidents, but if you've paid any attention at all to the campaigns over the last couple months, you'd see that both sides lie like hell about each other. This is not a liberal or conservative thing. Politicians are just liars. By painting it as a liberal thing, you're just showing your blindness to what's really going on.
You mean the 2008-2009 where the Dems controlled Congress? That one? I'll be glad to blame the ones in charge at the time.
Funny. Now maybe you can explain precisely what the Democrats managed to pass in those two years that caused a complete economic meltdown. Somehow I don't think you're going to find a real answer for that, because that's not what actually happened.
Not really. The mandate was never on the table, and that was pretty much a deal killer for ANY conservative. Most of the "seeking input" was done my Obama, true, but there was NEVER any done from the Dems in the Senate or House - remember all the "closed door" sessions after a particular promise from Pelosi to have everything on CSPAN and out in the open? Didn't happen. There were a few bones thrown our way, but there was NO HSA expansion (actually contracted); VERY little in the way of high-deductible plans; NO ability to cross state lines to get a different health care service (which, admittedly, could be done at the state level). It was also comprehensive and ridiculously long, rather than dealing with one issue at a time.
And all we've heard from Republicans in recent weeks is how they're not going to compromise on their principles, yet Democrats are demonized for trying to stick to theirs. Nice.
Republican health care ideas might have lead to some savings in some areas, but they aren't going to fix the real problems.
So, what you're saying by your logic is that you want a nanny state where those in power create a bunch of laws that dictate every last thing you can and cannot do. Hope you like to walk everywhere, because if you drive or ride in ANY other mode of transportation (including horses), you're polluting the "rivers" yourself.
Remember MTBE? Left wingers wanted that in all gasoline, because it made gas burn more completely, hence "good for the environment" . Well the shit is in our water supply now, and it is a dangerous chemical that is persistent in ground water. People do evil shit all the time, sometimes even without knowing it. Looking back MTBE was lame ass stupid idea, and some people knew it. But it was MANDATED by law, the very regulation you think we all should follow blindly.
Or did I get it wrong?
You can probably come up with other examples as well. The problem is that there are a shit-ton more examples of unregulated industry doing evil shit than there are of government screwups.
I'm asking for accountability, not assurances.
And you've received it. The affected customers are getting refunds. Verizon paid $25,000,000 to the US Treasury. I'm sorry if that isn't good enough for you.
So where's the proof from them that they actually know these supposedly long-unknowable facts about the overcharges? If they're as incompetent as you're implying, then I don't see how we can have any confidence at all in their ability to determine an accurate figure.
A bunch of blah blah blah and then "...I'm glad to have you on our side, 'cause I agree with you. Leave your game alone. The people that put together these video games are artists in their own right. If you're gonna start saying that video games are raunchy, then how the hell do you leave cable television alone?"
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_102910/content/01125113.guest.html http://kotaku.com/5677274/rush-limbaugh-defends-video-games-free-speech-says-this-is-where-the-battle-is
While I agree when it comes to just speech, I don't agree with him when it comes to actions. By his logic, it should be fine for companies to dump tons of pollution into rivers with no legal consequence, because then the market will take care of it, right? Except that that river really only matters to the people who depend on it, and even if every one of them boycotted that company, they could still do just fine selling to the rest of the country and the world. It also implies that there's a way for people to get accurate and timely information about what companies are polluting, and that doesn't happen. Then multiply this by the number of other possible transgressions a company can make, and it quickly becomes obvious that the market will not be able to handle it, because there's too much information and no good way to get it to the people who need it in a way they can easily understand. Which is why we need agencies specifically tasked with monitoring and handling these issues. Even then they have a hard time keeping up, but at least something gets done most of the time. We just need to make sure these agencies do their job and don't get overzealous and overstep their bounds, and that they don't get co-opted by those who they're overseeing, a-la the Minerals Management Service.
Your entire argument is that they couldn't tell the difference, but suddenly with this settlement, they know exactly who and how much?
This is the third or forth time you've implied that they aren't acting in good faith with regards to these refunds. Do you have any evidence of this or do you simply believe in "guilty until proven innocent" for corporate transgressions?
Nothing else they've done in this situation can be construed as "in good faith". They didn't even bother to warn their customers, why should we take them at face value? I'm asking for accountability, not assurances. You don't seem to understand the difference. You said they couldn't tell what charges were legit or not. We already know they're guilty of overcharging for years and not telling anyone. I'm saying let them prove that they actually know who and how much they overcharged, since it seemed to be such a huge mystery to them. That's called accountability. What you're suggesting is that we let them throw out a number and just accept it. In what universe would that idea fly? Maybe I can convince the IRS that my underpayments were just an oversight and I'll pay them what I think I owe them. No need to actually verify anything.
Exactly how much proof do you need?
I want proof that this was a deliberate effort on Verizon's part to screw people over. You can't offer such proof because you don't have it. Your main point of contention seems to be the fact that they never notified their customers about this issue and that somehow proves fraud. You have no timeline for when management became aware of the problem nor do you have a timeline for when the problem was fixed. It would seem to me that you would need that information before you can level a fraud charge based on the lack of notification.
So your theory is that they were unaware of the problem for all those years until they got sued? Wow. I'm surprised we don't hear more stories of Verizon execs accidently stabbing themselves in the eye with their forks. Your theory calls for them to be dangerously retarded. I wonder if they're aware they work for a large corporation, or if they just sit in their offices playing with markers and post-it notes.
If your best excuse for them is that they are so unimaginably incompetent that they went for years hearing these complaints from their customers, but yet were completely unaware that they had a problem, then I really can't argue with you further. I find that excuse ridiculous, but then I don't share your bizarre worldview where corporations are so impeachably honest in all their dealings that to even question them is some sort of heresy. Good luck with that.
I just want to see accountability from corporations, which is seriously lacking, which we've seen in case after case for years.
What kind of "accountability" do you think is called for here? They refunded the money that people were incorrectly charged. They paid an eight digit fine for their transgressions. What more should happen?
When it comes to accountability, how about proof that they actually know who they overcharged and how much? Your entire argument is that they couldn't tell the difference, but suddenly with this settlement, they know exactly who and how much? All too often the punishments for things like this are smaller than the profits made through them, and that doesn't even consider the fact that they got to keep the money for several years. That's a lot of time for investment returns.
At some level, someone decided not to tell anyone about these overcharges.
Another charge for which you offer zero proof. Yawn.
Exactly how much proof do you need? Which point are you disputing?
So you must be claiming one or more of the following things:
I'm just not seeing how any of those are possible.
I'm at a loss to understand why you think this was deliberate fraud, other than your ideology and hatred of all things corporate.
Now who's engaged in baseless accusations? I don't hate all things corporate. I work for a large corporation! I just want to see accountability from corporations, which is seriously lacking, which we've seen in case after case for years.
You assume that "they" had any clue what was going on. Ever worked for a large corporation? Do you honestly believe this problem was on management's radar at the beginning? You have a handful of customers that are complaining about a $1.99 charge. The vast majority of those charges WERE legitimate (data usage for application downloads and web browsing).
I have, and I do, and I have friends and relatives that do as well. It still doesn't make sense that they didn't know this was going on. If it took them more than a year to realize it (which I consider to be ridiculously long, especially when customers were calling in repeatedly about these charges), they still went years longer without telling anyone as they continued to do it. The excuses you're making for them just don't make sense. At some level, someone decided not to tell anyone about these overcharges. We can speculate about when and by whom that decision was made, but Verizon is responsible for the decision not to warn their customers that they were incapable of determining the correct charge for their customers.
First of all, if they couldn't determine which were legitimate and which were not back then, how are they suddenly able to do it now I wonder?
Let's assume that you're right about that. If they couldn't tell who to charge and who not to charge, then they sure as hell should have warned their customers. They didn't. They just kept the money for years and said nothing. There's no way that that's not fraud. You say I don't have proof, but the proof is precisely the fact that they kept it under wraps. It's plain as day that they didn't even make an attempt to do the right thing. Your moral compass is just so fucked up you can't seem to see it. Give me one good reason why they didn't warn their customers that they couldn't tell who to charge and who not to charge and that people needed to check their bills? In what fucked up moral system is that ok?
I've just disputed your claims that they committed fraud.
No, you've utterly failed to explain how knowingly keeping money from illegitimate charges against millions of customers for several years without saying anything to them about it is not fraud. It doesn't matter that they paid it back years later after they got sued by the FCC. That's like saying that robbing a bank isn't a big deal as long as you give the money back after the cops catch you.
Except they refunded the money.
Years later, after they got sued by the FCC.
I said nothing of the kind, all I said was that it's your responsibility to review your bill for accuracy.
What does that have to do with anything? You're trying to pin the blame on Verizon's customers. Millions of them got overcharged and Verizon didn't say a damn thing about it for years. You're really straining to try to make them seem innocent on this one when it's plain as day that they didn't do the right thing. Honesty is the right thing. When you're taking money from people that isn't rightfully yours, and you know it, that's stealing. That they continued to do this for years without telling anyone is just wrong. You can try to split hairs all you want, but anyone with any sense of ethical behavior knows that this is wrong.
Meanwhile we only have their word to go on that they're refunding the proper amounts to everyone that should get a refund
If you think they are lying you have a remedy through a civil lawsuit and the discovery process. Otherwise it's just another unproven accusation.
First, I didn't make an accusation there. Second, it's a true statement. And finally, such a civil suit would take years and more money than I'll see in a lifetime to have any hope of success. You're deluded.