birdog1960

so how is changing from connor to gator any different?

not bothered to go to those lengths. now if there were a way to check on multiple screen names i'd do it.

well, he was clearly named something else before his current name. what compels someone to do that? I've always been and will remain birddog. I like bird dog's. they're hard working, smart , loyal and sincere. they generally run with people of similar character. rhinos, not so much...

not accusing, hypothesizing. in your case it would likely be multiplicitous.. I can neither confirm nor refute, however,

thewn leave gator alone. people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

if we banned all multiple posters, there'd likely be little left.

there's no method of verification unless you are one of the culprits... allowing unchecked intellectual dishonesty to continue when aware of it, constitutes intellectual dishonesty on it's own...

good, how bout enlightening us all? those names are not contemporaneous are they? that's where the intellectual dishonesty comes into play.

yeah, in my estimation you're in the least suspicious group. but setting up a fictitious good cop, bad cop scheme to gain advantage in an argument is within the scope of possibility for several posters here.

abvsolutely not unless he represents a pseudonym for a poster with multiple identities. that's who should be banned before anyone else. that represents the lowest form of intellectual dishonesty and likely turns off more potential posters than any other single thing.

the more reasonable analogy would be to move to Colorado. "No, you're not". yeah, labels don't always fit. how bout this: I overwhelmingly choose liberal candidates when they are an option.

to each his own. seems when it come to where to live, i'm more libertarian than many here. yet i'm a liberal...hmmm.

you mean like the comic book contracts I've reviewed from houses in hoa restricted areas that I briefly considered buying? I read several where trees and shrubs had to be approved. outside light too. NO vegetable patches. seems there were many NO's. again, seems antithetical to liberty.

what about restrictive covenants escapes your understanding? do you like the idea that your house can be one of 3 shades of green and your lawn cut to a certain height variance? does that sound like liberty to you? perhaps we should define liberty. I contend that restrictive and liberty are antonyms.

I understand hoa's. they're generally ruled by a group of busybodies that have nothing better to do than complain about their neighbors. and they perseverate on minutiae. why a libertarian would ever consider being part of such an arrangement is beyond me. isn't the base word "liberty"? hoa's and liberty are like oil and water. unless, secretly, liberterians want to lord over others like hoa boards often do. that seems feasible.

seemed an odd metaphor for a libertarian.

it's why I live out in the country. my dogs take steaming ***** with wild abandon. no one can complain. hoa's are for sheep.

I doubt very much that any passable legislation for medicare means testing would use those thresholds.

looks like a sense of humor is another thing we don't have in common.

no. the implication is that those that would pass a means test for medicare did not actually plan ahead. most likely it would be a small percentage of people that would fail the means test meaning the rest of us didn't plan. pure horse shite. most of us planned, won't have concierge care and would pass means testing.

people with lots of money should be means tested for medicare. (btw, susan Collins voted for medicare means testing) if they can afford concierge services, they can pay what medicare actually costs (most peop[le take far more from medicare than they ever put in). so yes, they should be able to get tiered service if those conditions are met. but remember, every doc that sees 300 pt's in a concierge panel is one less doc able to see the unwashed masses like me and presumably you. there's already a shortage of primary care. this exacerbates it. kinda reminds me of the threat of avian flu epidemic and elderly and pregnant were first priority to get the immunization. but the young bucks at goldman sachs jumped the line and got theirs first. maybe that's ok with you but it's not ok with me.

wow. susan collins. yep. i'd take her over hillary. might even register R. no, let's not get carried away. she's bright and nearly fearless. has conviction and sincerity. alas, she'll never make the cut. the far right and other trumpsters would revolt. as an aside, watching some late night shows on hulu. just heard cruz called the republican toilet plunger. cuz someone has to push the turd out.

they may not want to but they often will for exclusivity and "better" (read "more") care. if you don't have your health, you don't have anything....true dat. and the rich know that better than most. more to lose. and it matters. nice synopsis of a paper from jama about life expectancy between rich and poor: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/11/upshot/for-the-poor-geography-is-life-and-death.html?_r=0. that's the ultimate outcome, non?

concierge can work even without billing medicare but only in very wealthy communities. and the patients expect a pound of flesh from their docs and service equivalent to a five star resort. 300 pt's paying $2000 each will do just fine. but yeah medicare will need to generally be billed for all tests and hospitalizations. if i were to do it i'd send all that stuff out and not bill medicare eat all. but i'd never do it. treating the privileged can be a royal pita, the whole model is a symptom of the pus ridden septic condition of the us healthcare system. docs can't make it private without catering exclusively to the rich. and the rich can't get enough exclusive care without a second or third tier. so most everyone that can't practice on the west side of manhattan jumps and asks how high when a bunch of suits that don't know squat about medicine and don't really care about people in general, tell them to.

private practice has classically been defined otherwise. it's facing almost certain extinction from the big insurers. yes, they're private except that they contract with the gov't thru medicare and medicaid (why, i don't have a clue). the real point is that these companies are no more trustworthy than the gov't and don't answer in any way to the public except thru the free market which doesn't exist in healthcare. i'd argue that the big insurers are less desirable healthcare puppet masters ([for both patients and doctors) than elected officials. this is why republican cardiologists are calling for single payer.