Oh hell to the no
Political Discussion
- Thread starter David A.
- Start date
Oh hell to the no
Early voters in Georgia face obstacles under state’s new election law — Guardian US
Unlimited challenges to eligibility and poorly trained poll workers cause frustration in key gubernatorial and US Senate contests
apple.news
Early voting with Georgia's new election laws seems to be hampered with miscommunications, and people being told they can only vote with a provisional ballot when they should be able to vote with a regular ballot.
Djxfactor511
Well-Known Member
Even with that, early voting numbers are higher than 2020.
Early voters in Georgia face obstacles under state’s new election law — Guardian US
Unlimited challenges to eligibility and poorly trained poll workers cause frustration in key gubernatorial and US Senate contests
Early voting with Georgia's new election laws seems to be hampered with miscommunications, and people being told they can only vote with a provisional ballot when they should be able to vote with a regular ballot.
Early voting in Georgia smashes 2020 record as high-profile races grab the spotlight
After early voting began in Georgia, voters went to the polls in record numbers that are expected to continue due to high-profile races.
www.usatoday.com
Speaking of voting,
Question 1 in MA is about raising the state income tax for people making $1 Million or More a year by 4% to fund Education and Public Transportation.
4 out of 5 ads are to vote no on this. All about how it will hurt small businesses, give politicians a blank check, the state already has a surplus and has no need to raise taxes. Any my favorite, the nickname "the tax hike bill" as well as that this bill "sets the precedence to raise taxes on all".
This week I have gotten 3 different mail pieces telling me to vote no on it alone.
Question 1 only taxes individuals, not small businesses, that make $1 Million or more a year, which is the top 1%. How would this hurt small businesses.
God forbid the top 1% have more taxes, which they likely pretty much right all off anyways.
Question 1 in MA is about raising the state income tax for people making $1 Million or More a year by 4% to fund Education and Public Transportation.
4 out of 5 ads are to vote no on this. All about how it will hurt small businesses, give politicians a blank check, the state already has a surplus and has no need to raise taxes. Any my favorite, the nickname "the tax hike bill" as well as that this bill "sets the precedence to raise taxes on all".
This week I have gotten 3 different mail pieces telling me to vote no on it alone.
Question 1 only taxes individuals, not small businesses, that make $1 Million or more a year, which is the top 1%. How would this hurt small businesses.
God forbid the top 1% have more taxes, which they likely pretty much right all off anyways.
Jan
Well-Known Member
Guess some of those individuals earning over $1 million found putting lots of money in ads to avoid more taxes a financially sound investment
Last edited:
Question 2 on the MA ballot is an interesting one. It has to do with dental care and is backed by dentists.
As is most healthcare, dental care is no different in the fact that more and more insurance providers are passing the buck to the patients through ever higher co-pays and deductibles on procedures.
Dentists say it's gotten to the point where nearly half the people with insurance can't afford to get their routine cleanings because of the co-pay.
Question 2 would limit co-pays and require that insurance providers use a minimum of 83% of premiums on patient services. And any of that 83% unused during the year would get refunded to the patient.
And as you can imagine, the insurance industry is not happy about this proposed bill and is on all war blitzing people with propaganda about how bad this would be. Their main points are "There is a reason no other state has a law like this, and that's because studies show it doesn't work. They looked at it when creating Obama Care and opted out of doing it." And that question 2 "Would mean higher premiums for all".
Dentists say premiums would not go up. But I'm not so optimistic with our for profit system. Any excuse they get right?
As is most healthcare, dental care is no different in the fact that more and more insurance providers are passing the buck to the patients through ever higher co-pays and deductibles on procedures.
Dentists say it's gotten to the point where nearly half the people with insurance can't afford to get their routine cleanings because of the co-pay.
Question 2 would limit co-pays and require that insurance providers use a minimum of 83% of premiums on patient services. And any of that 83% unused during the year would get refunded to the patient.
And as you can imagine, the insurance industry is not happy about this proposed bill and is on all war blitzing people with propaganda about how bad this would be. Their main points are "There is a reason no other state has a law like this, and that's because studies show it doesn't work. They looked at it when creating Obama Care and opted out of doing it." And that question 2 "Would mean higher premiums for all".
Dentists say premiums would not go up. But I'm not so optimistic with our for profit system. Any excuse they get right?
Joe Mac
Well-Known Member
So it’s Rischi. Britain gets another unelected leader. He’s no genius and don’t expect anything inspired but he’s at least not a fucking idiot so he’s unlikely to do anything crackpot like Truss. The question is can he at the very least keep his barmy right wing quiet, if not silent or sated.
Inside the hospitals that concealed Russian casualties
As Putin sought to cover up the scale of troop losses in Ukraine, injured Russian soldiers were spirited across the border to Belarus.
www.cnn.com
This article is more than just text. I love it when they put editorials together like this.
There have been several economic assessments on company profits vs. increased costs of labor and materials and every single assessment I have read says that increased cost in labor and materials (shipping, etc) are far less than profits and the companies that jacked up prices during covid, have seen record profits that are far higher than their increased costs. So the answer is, if the state legislates that the insurance companies must cover something, the insurance companies will use this as a reason to jack up prices but those prices will be higher than the actual cost of doing business and they will translate these increases into record profits.
TenderLovingKiller®
Well-Known Member
Not quite. It would also need to come with a goatee, Underarmor hat, wrap around shades (sitting on top of the brim of the hat while not in use), a conceal carry holster that is bulging out of the back of their shirt, a pair Sketcher sneakers and a very tiny penis.
Twentytwo
Pre-order Goodness
Nee Lewman
बैस्टर्ड
I mean I want one of those on my truck. Also a full sized pick up with a full back row sized cab and a full six foot bed is bigger than any spot in my neck of the woods anyhow.
You just described my ex…
mrjoshuamccormack
Active Member
Yikes!
Just got our open enrollment information. And as expected, prices are going up.
We are seeing a 8% increase in medical and 10% increase in dental. Same plans as 2022, no changes to benefits are clearly outlined on our fact sheet / guide. But I get if you read through the entire policy there are changes that deflect costs for something things to us that had better coverage last year.
One thing I have noticed over the last few years by looking at my W2s, is that the amount of money our holding company contributes towards benefits doesn't change year to year. Meaning that any increase in costs of insurance / benefits are 100% passed on to us. Going to assume the same will be true for 2023.
We are seeing a 8% increase in medical and 10% increase in dental. Same plans as 2022, no changes to benefits are clearly outlined on our fact sheet / guide. But I get if you read through the entire policy there are changes that deflect costs for something things to us that had better coverage last year.
One thing I have noticed over the last few years by looking at my W2s, is that the amount of money our holding company contributes towards benefits doesn't change year to year. Meaning that any increase in costs of insurance / benefits are 100% passed on to us. Going to assume the same will be true for 2023.