Oso planning to go pro
You're putting up hurdles before we even know what they are. Also, China does a lot of dumb sh*t, but that doesn't mean the US should just go along for the ride. Climate change is real. Boom. Truth. Is it all because of humans? Likely not. Too many variables. Do human contribute? Likely yes. Okay, settled. Fine. So what do we do? Well, throwing up our hands because we don't have a youtube video or IKEA instructions on how to fix the problem is silly. We need to start at square one: Human behavior. Can we all understand how we make an impact. How can we minimize it day to day? After that, let's look at industries and see if the private sector can innovate. Maybe some cooperation with governments and public funding. After that, let's use some social, global and economic pressures with our trade partners, so they get their sh*t together as well. After that, let's see if we can find another planet to move to, or at least steal their air with a gigantic spaceship that turns into a maid with a vacuum. Not that tough, guys.
Agreed. We need more transparency at a LOT of levels.Fortunately, that was a pillar of this administration. Or so I was told a few years ago.
Kids today don't have time for that history stuff. They have to read " Billy Has Two Moms"
Wow, I'm very concerned for Benny. Being able to mimic Myron Medcalf's writing so closely implies an oncoming case of dementia.
Yeah....throw money at the problem because that's always the solution. It's ended the war on poverty, it has fixed education, it totally ended the war on drugs, and we can go on.Look, your response is cute and all, but forgive some of us that would like to know what we are doing, how much it is going to cost in real dollars and in lost competitiveness. Seems a fair ask.Note, I didn't say I'm against it. Note, I think humans are involved in SOME warming, then again climate is getting warmer on other planets where humans aren't present...are we causing that also? Of course not. It's complicated as hell, and that's the problem.A very complicated scenario and you end up with a solution that is "not that tough guys". Well, yeah, it is. What's the plan, what does it cost, WHAT WILL IT DO AND HOW IS IT MEASURED, what are the consequences of doing it or not doing it. These are valid, RESPONSIBLE questions for the world, for our nation, for the taxpayers. Too many unknowns and way too many simpleton answers.
Under the ACA, health insurers can charge up to a 50% surcharge for tobacco usage. The same calculation should be made for insuring the unvaccinated.
Is chicos too west coast?
How unfair
How about those having unprotected sex or are just promiscuous in their actions.....higher surcharge?
The more perfect the analysis of risk, the more accurate the premium. Clearly, some things are harder to verify than others.
Being extremely overweight is a greater health risk than tobacco use, so perhaps a fat tax is in order.http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/national_world/2014/07/09/obesity-worse-than-smoking.html
How about an IQ test....for the stupid people that do really stupid things that hurt themselves or others.....I'm all for it. The national IQ testing facility.
Sure, as soon as there's an indisputable, scientific link showing that possessing a certain IQ or IQ range means you're likely to be doing stupid things that hurt oneself or others.
Why, we make policies all the time based on things that are not indisputable.
Why? More risk, more premium to pay to cover that risk.Explain.
How about those who work terribly long hours and are under an inordinate amount of stress? Especially if they constantly brag/complain that to be so.
FYI .... that's not a very good argument in support of your position.
You two are always lobbing sh1t balls at each other but this was priceless! I am still laughing!
I forget, is anyone here on the side of the anti-vaxxers? Because if we're all in agreement here, then what's the sense dancing around a Chicos-bash-fest... let's just dive right in.