Jump to content
Chapala.com Webboard

AlanMexicali

Members
  • Posts

    3,090
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

Everything posted by AlanMexicali

  1. Reality is not spewing propaganda/lies. That is what all fascists do. This guy's reality is not even close to real. It is fantasy where he "thinks" he is spewing the truth. He isn't. They are lies and so many of them it smells up the place.
  2. It is called a retraction. FYI "re·trac·tion /rəˈtrakSH(ə)n/ Learn to pronounce noun 1. the action of drawing something back or back in. "prey are grasped between the jaws upon tongue retraction" 2. a withdrawal of a statement, accusation, or undertaking. "he issued a retraction of his allegations" " When can we expect to see a long list of them from you?
  3. https://www.google.com.mx/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/09/30/us/politics/trump-coronavirus-misinformation.amp.htmlThe Coronavirus Pandemic "Study Finds ‘Single Largest Driver’ of Coronavirus Misinformation: Trump Cornell University researchers analyzing 38 million English-language articles about the pandemic found that President Trump was the largest driver of the “infodemic.” Share on Facebook Share on WhatsApp Post on Twitter Mail Image Mentions of President Trump made up nearly 38 percent of the overall online “misinformation conversation” about the virus, researchers said.Credit...Erin Schaff/The New York Times By Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Noah Weiland Published Sept. 30, 2020Updated Oct. 6, 2021 "WASHINGTON — Of the flood of misinformation, conspiracy theories and falsehoods seeding the internet on the coronavirus, one common thread stands out: President Trump. That is the conclusion of researchers at Cornell University who analyzed 38 million articles about the pandemic in English-language media around the world. Mentions of Mr. Trump made up nearly 38 percent of the overall “misinformation conversation,” making the president the largest driver of the “infodemic” — falsehoods involving the pandemic. The study, to be released Thursday, is the first comprehensive examination of coronavirus misinformation in traditional and online media. “The biggest surprise was that the president of the United States was the single largest driver of misinformation around Covid,” said Sarah Evanega, the director of the Cornell Alliance for Science and the study’s lead author. “That’s concerning in that there are real-world dire health implications.” ADVERTISEMENT The study identified 11 topics of misinformation, including various conspiracy theories, like one that emerged in January suggesting the pandemic was manufactured by Democrats to coincide with Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial, and another that purported to trace the initial outbreak in Wuhan, China, to people who ate bat soup. But by far the most prevalent topic of misinformation was “miracle cures,” including Mr. Trump’s promotion of anti-malarial drugs and disinfectants as potential treatments for Covid-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. That accounted for more misinformation than the other 10 topics combined, the researchers reported. They found that of the more than 38 million articles published from Jan. 1 to May 26, more than 1.1 million — or slightly less than 3 percent — contained misinformation. They sought to identify and categorize falsehoods, and also tracked trends in reporting, including rises in coverage. For example, on April 24, a day after Mr. Trump floated — and was ridiculed for — the idea that disinfectants and ultraviolet light might treat Covid-19, there were more than 30,000 articles in the “miracle cures” category, up from fewer than 10,000 only days earlier. Mr. Trump drove those increases, the study found. ADVERTISEMENT To those who have been watching Mr. Trump’s statements, the idea that he is responsible for spreading or amplifying misinformation might not come as a huge shock. The president has also been feeding disinformation campaigns around the presidential election and mail-in voting that Russian actors have amplified — and his own government has tried to stop. But in interviews, the Cornell researchers said they expected to find more mentions of conspiracy theories, and not so many articles involving Mr. Trump."
  4. Just the news: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Solomon_(political_commentator) Conspiracy theories are all you have got it appears? https://www.mediamatters.org/john-solomon Searching out these far right sources gives confirmation of your mindset where you state you use facts and rational thinking when arguing on these topics. I presume you do not but "think" you do.
  5. You're the liar here, obviously! Typical of a conspiracy theorist. "Did Obamacare Make Premiums Go Up? By DANIEL KURT Updated June 12, 2021 Reviewed by ANDY SMITH Fact checked by SKYLAR CLARINE It’s hard to find a federal law that has polarized the American public as much as the Affordable Care Act (ACA), better known as Obamacare. Proponents argue that the bill is doing precisely what it promised to do: holding down the rate of spending on medical services. Earlier on, after the ACA was implemented, many opponents of the law on the political right fumed over sky-high premiums. Which side was closer to the truth? Here's a look at the earlier years of premium prices and how Marketplace premiums look in 2021. A Shakeup in the Market for Individual Plans While the ACA created new regulations for employer-based health plans, undoubtedly its biggest impact is on policies bought outside the workplace. The law fundamentally reshaped the market for these individual plans, on which more than 33 million Americans rely for their health coverage.1 First, the ACA created online exchanges where consumers could, for the first time, shop for comparable plans with relative ease.2 In addition, the law established a mandate to purchase health insurance, theoretically bringing more healthy young people into the market and putting downward pressure on healthcare costs.3 The bill also included a number of provisions aimed at bolstering the quality of individual plans. For example, insurers were required to cover policyholders with pre-existing medical conditions and to provide certain “essential benefits,” such as maternity and mental health coverage.4 In theory, these components of the ACA could have pushed premiums higher. In light of these new requirements for insurers, healthcare experts say looking at prices before and after 2014, the year healthcare exchanges were introduced, is a tricky endeavor because the policies are so different. In many cases, the policies that Americans are buying today offer greater benefits—including a cap on out-of-pocket expenses—than those purchased prior to the ACA. Expectations for the Affordable Care Act (ACA) With that caveat in mind, The New York Times assessed pricing data and predicted that premiums would rise by 8.4% for the most popular health plans that consumers carried over from 2013. However, the Times also predicted that premiums would rise by only 1% if consumers switched plans and shopped on the exchanges.5 When you factor in the subsidies that lower-income earners receive, there’s actually some evidence that personal healthcare outlays may have gone down slightly in 2014. The nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation examined premiums for those who switched from earlier plans to ACA-compliant policies and found that 46% paid lower premiums. Conversely, 39% said their premiums were higher.6 The Early Effect on Premiums For 2015, the second year of the online exchanges, the Kaiser Family Foundation found that price increases were fairly small. Nationwide, premiums for exchange-based plans with a medium level of coverage rose by a modest 2%—and that’s without tallying the effect of subsidies that reduce out-of-pocket expense for some individuals and families. (The study examined the second-lowest-cost silver plan in the marketplace; plans are divided into bronze, silver, gold, and platinum levels).7 A separate source, the McKinsey Center for the U.S. Health System Reform, revealed a somewhat larger jump from 2014 to 2015. It concluded that gross premiums (those before subsidies) climbed by an average of 6% for the least-expensive plans on the exchange.8 While a 6% uptick may sound significant, it was not too drastic when compared to pricing trends before the healthcare law. The Commonwealth Fund, another nonpartisan research organization, studied the three-year period before the passage of the ACA—from 2008 to 2010—and found that premiums on the individual market were rising by 10% or more per year nationwide.9 More Recent Effects on Premiums In 2018 and 2019, the ACA's marketplaces experienced considerable turmoil that resulted in huge swings in premiums. In October 2017, the administration stopped directly reimbursing insurers for cost-sharing reductions. The ACA required marketplace insurers to reduce out-of-pocket costs for people with incomes below 250% of the federal poverty level, so insurers increased their premiums (typically silver marketplace premiums ) to cover the additional cost. There were also concerns about the marketplaces’ stability and long-term viability, and these fears were reflected in the 2018 premiums.10 In 2018, the lowest silver marketplace premium offered in each rating region increased sharply by 29.7% on average. Twenty-eight states increased their average lowest silver premium by more than 29%.10 In 2019, many insurers realized that they had overreacted, and increases for the lowest silver premiums averaged -0.4% nationwide, and, in many states, premiums decreased. In 2020, continued stability caused premiums to fall across all states by an average of 3.5%. According to the Urban Institute, 31 states had lower premiums in 2020 than in 2019.10 ACA Prices Remain Steady in 2021 In 2021, ACA Marketplace premiums stabilized, according to the Urban Institute. The national average benchmark premium fell again in 2021, following decreases in both 2019 and 2020—remarkable because it contrasts with premium increases in the employer-sponsored insurance market over the same period. Note that the nationwide average belies variation in premiums across and within states. The Urban Institute found that insurer participation is key to setting premium levels and influencing growth over time. The ACA made premium tax credits available to people purchasing health coverage on the marketplaces but only when their incomes fell between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level. Millions of uninsured people are eligible for subsidized coverage on the ACA marketplaces but do not take advantage of this financial help. This may be that the financial help is not sufficient to make the premium or the deductible affordable. Moreover, a sharp cliff exists at 400% of the poverty level. The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 law passed in March 2021 under President Biden expanded marketplace subsidies above 400% of poverty and increased subsidies for those making between 100% and 400% of the poverty level. According to Kaiser Family Foundation, "These additional subsidies will yield substantially lower premium payments for the vast majority of the nearly 15 million uninsured people who are eligible to buy on the marketplace and the nearly 14 million people insured on the individual market." " https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/071415/did-obamacare-make-premiums-go.asp
  6. You are quite the comedian. She argued, debated and debunked every conspiracy theory you spewed and here you state you won all these arguments wIth her when you lost every one. You insult people and groups of people and cry when they give the same treatment to you as if you somehow didn't deserve/ask for it in the first place. Most critizism on this thread and others are accurately describing your behaviour. Maybe some self awareness might seep into your life and help unblock what you presently precieve as reality. It is fantasy we all are witnessing and telling you, which is far away from reality.
  7. You try to silence us who speak the truth and debunk conspiracy theories. Insults don't work on either side. We have a vested interest in debunking all the lies because they are dangerous, obviously.
  8. You assume quite a lot. Many people here could buy and sell you and as a matter of privacy on a public forum do not need or want to brag about their life's achievements like you, a newbie, appear to like to do to "try" to impress others. I don't care you or your wife were in the military and to me it is no big deal that you seem to think it is and now feel entitled because you were.
  9. Of course he was. What happened to your "so called" critical thinking ability? Maybe you were psychological projecting this onto others here that are onbiously more rational?
  10. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Yeadon " Michael Yeadon is a British anti-vaccine activist[1][2] and retired pharmacologist who attracted media attention for making false or unfounded claims about the COVID-19 pandemic and the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.[3][1] The Times has described him as "a hero of Covid conspiracy theorists"[4] and "a key figure in the antivax movement".[5] He previously served as the chief scientist and vice-president of the allergy and respiratory research division of the drug company Pfizer, and is the co-founder and former CEO of the biotechnology company Ziarco." Another nut case obviously.
  11. https://www.wellsfargo.com/help/international-access-codes/ "International Access Codes - Wells Fargo Customers outside of the United States can call Wells Fargo customer service toll-free from most countries. If you are calling from Mexico, dial one of the following: Telcel mobile network blocks international toll free calls For personal accounts: 001-800-8693557 For business accounts: 001-800-2255935 For online customer service: 001-800-9564442" If you use Telcel they BLOCK toll free international calls.
  12. Most 1-800 US numbers won't work from Mexico. Never did. Check the bank's website and use the non 800 or whatever toll free number and use it. It wll be a US area code number.
  13. https://news.yahoo.com/covid-1-million-us-daily-death-rate-falls-fauci-pandemic-192926133.html "U.S. inches toward 1 million COVID deaths as daily death rate falls Dylan Stableford Fri, April 29, 2022, 2:29 PM·3 min As the world marked the second anniversary of the coronavirus pandemic in March, the United States was on the brink of reaching 1 million COVID-19 deaths, with health experts projecting that the country would surpass that mark by the end of the month or early April. Nearly two months later, the nation is still bracing for that grim milestone. But that it’s taken longer than expected is a sliver of sunlight in an otherwise dark reality. According to Johns Hopkins University, there have been more than 81 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the U.S. to date, and more than 993,000 Americans have died of complications from the virus. But the daily death rate has slowed considerably. On March 11 — the day many Americans recognize as the anniversary of the coronavirus pandemic — the seven-day average for deaths attributed to COVID-19 was 1,229, per Johns Hopkins. It has since fallen to about 300 deaths a day. Columns representing victims of the coronavirus line the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool on the eve of Joe Biden's inauguration, Jan. 19, 2021. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images) Daily hospitalizations have fallen too, from a pandemic high of more than 20,000 in mid-January to under 2,000 now. “I believe we are at an inflection point,” Dr. Ashish Jha, the new White House coordinator of the administration’s COVID-19 response, said at a press briefing earlier this week. “On one hand, we know that BA.2, the subvariant of Omicron, has become dominant; cases are rising across the country. But hospitalizations are at the lowest level of the pandemic and deaths are continuing to fall. “We're down to about 300 deaths a day — still too many, still too high, but [we are] doing so much better than we have throughout much of this pandemic,” Jha added. He credited the nation’s vaccination program, in large part, for slowing the death toll. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 219 million Americans, or 66.1% of the population, are considered fully vaccinated, having received at least two doses of the Moderna or Pfizer vaccines, or one dose of the Johnson & Johnson shot. And more than 100 million Americans have received at least one COVID-19 booster, or about 45% of those fully vaccinated, per CDC data. All of which led Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation's top infectious disease director and chief medical adviser to President Biden, to declare this week that the country is “out of the pandemic phase.” “We don't have 900,000 new infections a day and tens and tens and tens of thousands of hospitalizations and thousands of deaths,” Fauci said in an interview with "PBS Newshour” on Tuesday. “We are at a low level right now. So if you're saying, ‘Are we out of the pandemic phase in this country?’ we are.” He clarified those remarks in a Washington Post interview the following day, saying the nation is moving “into a transitional phase, from a deceleration of the numbers into hopefully a more controlled phase and endemicity.” Both Fauci and Jha acknowledged that predicting the endgame to this pandemic is futile. “We know this virus is tricky,” Jha said. “We know that the risk of potential surges, even of a potential new variant, remains out there. The good news is we are at a point where we have a lot more capabilities, a lot more tools to protect the American people: testing, vaccines, therapeutics. These are the sort of the pillars of how we manage the rest of this pandemic.” Story continues" I presume you see "fake news" here.
  14. Decades ago Similares sold drugs that were mislabeled, contained contaminates, were below name brand doises etc. and got caught many times. They cannot get away with it anymore. Because of their past fraud I feel compeled to not do business with the chain. They screwed over many customers and do not deserve my business.
  15. https://news.yahoo.com/mexican-president-slams-opposition-defeating-143802271.html Mexican president sees 'treason' behind power bill defeat, businesses relieved Dave Graham and Kylie Madry Mon, April 18, 2022, 9:38 AM·3 min read Summary 1 / 2 Mexican president sees 'treason' behind power bill defeat, businesses relieved Mexico's President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador delivers his quarterly report on his government's programs By Dave Graham and Kylie Madry MEXICO CITY (Reuters) -Mexico's president on Monday excoriated opposition lawmakers for voting down a major electricity reform, though business groups were cheered by Sunday's vote, which lifted some of the investor uncertainty clouding the country's energy market. President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador decried the defeat of his bid to change the constitution to tighten state control of the power market as "treason," though it could lower the risk of Mexico becoming embroiled in costly trade disputes. ADVERTISEMENT "Although the law's defeat offered a measure of relief to investors, considerable uncertainty remains for businesses that have been unsettled by a raft of efforts by Lopez Obrador to reinforce state domination of the industry. The leftist leader had spent months championing the bill he said would protect consumers and make Mexico more self-sufficient. Opponents argued it would raise electricity costs and undermine the country's clean energy commitments. The opposition united to reject the bill, and Lopez Obrador's National Regeneration Movement and its allies in the lower house of Congress fell well short of the two-thirds majority needed for constitutional amendments. "I believe that yesterday was an act of treason against Mexico committed by a group of legislators who, instead of defending the interests of the people ... became outright defenders of foreign companies," Lopez Obrador said, speaking at a regular news conference. The legislation would have prioritized state power utility Comision Federal de Electricidad (CFE) over private operators. Business lobbies and Mexico's top trade partner the United States had warned it could violate a North American trade agreement. Neil Herrington, senior vice president for the Americas at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said the bill's defeat was ultimately in Mexico's best interest. "Lawmakers realized that the proposal, as submitted, would have severely undermined the country's business climate at a time when foreign investment is needed more than ever to generate jobs and growth," he said in a statement. Mexico's Business Coordinating Council (CCE) applauded lawmakers for showing "great responsibility." Lopez Obrador submitted the bill last autumn after courts blocked a series of legislative measures and decrees aimed at bolstering the CFE, which relies heavily on fossil fuels from cash-strapped state oil company Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex)."
  16. Private company? After you read these articles and comments you say this. Why? Private companies that generate electricity legally through the last constutional electrical reform had contracts with CFE to buy electricity from them. CFE bills customers but do not have a monopoly on producing electricity now. Private electricity producers have been in Mexico and selling electricty to CFE for 20 years. AMLO wrote a book on how he will get CFE back to having a monopoly generating electricity in Mexico and get rid of the investors and expropiate or close their generating plants, solor farms, windmill areas, pipelines etc. , both national and international investments like it was before. His book also includes the same plan for petroleum but PEMEX always bought imported light crude to mix to refine Mexico's heavy crude into gas and diesel. Most natural gas they imported and other refined gas and diesel as Pemex could not produce enough for national use especially since Mexico modernized. This is why the Dos Bocas 18 billion USD refinery. It is state of the art and does more barrels per year than Pemex's 5 old refineries combined. It doesn't require light crude oil to mix with the Gulf heavy crude Mexico has to refine gas and diesel. It could be finished by 2026. He also plans to get rid of national and international investors involved in oil drilling rigs already in production in the Gulf, exploration in the Gulf, refining and distribution and have Pemex own and control it. Billions and billions of dollars are needed to pay off these investors to add to Pemex's possibly 1/2 trillion dollar augmenting debt. Recently Mexico borrowed 7.8 billion from the IMF and dropped 4 of it into Pemex's debt payment. None of these plans are very substainable plans.
  17. This was a constitutional reform and 2/3 in favor was needed to pass. The supreme court ruled 2 weeks ago about 1/4 of the reform was unconstitutional not even considering many of the parts of it being against the trade agreement between the US and Canada. The parts that would have made it pass with 50 percent AMLO didn't care about he wants the parts that were unconstitutional so the reform was not ratified to be a constitional legal electric reform. The US investors generating electricity in Mexico alone would loose 10 billion USDs and because of the part the supreme court rejected would allow these companies to sue Mexico for the 10 billion which is one of the reasons AMLO would not ratify the reform that he wrote. The trade agreement can also be used to sue Mexico. The supreme court in this case has saved Mexico many billions of dollars so far.
  18. Probably would end up the same, so yes. Political and Us against Them as always. In the case if it was Liberals the Us would outnumber the Them here, even though that was not in the OP's question. 😊
  19. It is an open forum. Live with it, please. You start a thread with a troll bait question what do you expect, seriuosly?
×
×
  • Create New...