birdog1960

but...but..he's in the HOF!

so the financial companies bailed out by 100's of billions of taxpayer dollars bear no responsibility for their epic failure? it is parallel- buying high and selling low is bad, the converse is good...some homeowners and businesses did the former and some did the latter...those that made the bad bets are responsible and lose and they should own up to their failures and obligations. selling bad assets at a loss is without harm. going bankrupt in the name of expediency is.

[quote name='Magox' timestamp='1284708106' post='1972720' Businesses do it all the time, when they have a non-performing asset they either look to sell it at a discounted rate or file for bankrupcy. There is very little difference between the two. No one in this example would have "cheated" as you suggested, one party decided to discontinue payments, allowing the bank to repossess the home. As I stated earlier, it happens all the time in the business world through bankrupcy courts, where companies are LEGALLY able to default on their payments. So you're wrong to suggest "cheating", because where we all live here in the U.S it is quite legal. i anticipated this argument and it's really very weak. unethical, careless, cavalier moves by businesses, especially those in financial services are much to blame for our current financial mess (and most were apparently legal)....and you're using them as an example of how individuals should behave? even if you have a machiavellian mind set (which i believe many americans have come to espouse), the ends suck regardless of the means.

[quote name='Magox' timestamp='1 That's why. And don't give me this "you have a responsibility to other people and your own character bla bla bla". No. You have a responsibility first and foremost to your family. IF this is the best move for your family, then YOU DO IT! just can't agree. when you sign a mortgage you sign a contract. the foundation of the entire country is contracts. when it becomes OK to routinely break them then there is no reason to make them and commerce stops..... not to mention that honesty, honor, personal responsibility, accountability, integrity and perserverence are not bygone fads and should not be considered optional to a person or business of character. if someone makes a bet and loses he should pay or face steep consequences. maybe they need to be more severe if the current rules allow cheaters to win or even save face. we have become a nation of cheaters and this more than any other issue will lead to our collapse if not stopped.

moderately down in Southern Virginia....mmcmansions are way down- i recently saw a house built for $800k about 5 years ago listed for 500. midlevel homes ($150-250K) are down only a liitle. amazingly building costs are still high despite the drop. higher end homes (but not highest) are $175-250 square foot to build but much less to buy used especially if they're huge--the mcmansion is dead.

i wouldn't be surprised if that's the way the seating arrangement works now in many households. if so, it's a loss to all concerned.

i'll buy that except pittsburgh, indy and foxboro aren't gonna remind anyone of bali and they do pretty well with talent. the chance at a championship is a chicken and egg type deal.

only the news hour on pbs for tv news. don't see much of palin there lately.

missed the first episode but the second was more entertaining than any of the games i saw this weekend

a duel. squash rackets at dawn?

if palin runs? ya mean that narcissist, megalomaniac? if she doesn't run she'll die trying. i agree that her running would be the best thing that could happen for progressives. only downside from my prospective is that i'll have to stop watching the news because it would ruin my dinnner.

threats and bribes to the offcials and all the gb starters

a bigger boob than joan harris

it happens that i saw the most recent episode of madmen 1 day after the bills recent debacle and it inspired memories....of cocktail parties and card games in the 60's and 70's where i'd occasionally overhear the adult conversations streaming from the living room. many revolved around the bills (kind of yesterday's version of an internet chat board only more real and intimate). I remember repeatedly hearing the phrase "they just don't have the horses"...year after year, loss after loss, bad qb after qb....and it struck me that this bills team is the poster child for that statement and that all but a select few bills teams in their history could legitimately be described that way...and then i think "why?". why have the bills consistently lacked elite talent all these years despite multiple high draft positions and the same chances as any other team in the league? i certainly have my theories but i'm interested in what the board has to say. any madmen like philosophers wanna take a shot?

the govt is the only entity capable of setting evidence based practice guidelines (as done in the UK, and which you correctly construe to be rationing) which would mitigate the grocery list requests of patients and allow docs to just say no when appropriate. there would of course need to be a safe harbor within those guidelines immunizing against malpractice if they are followed. i believe this will be the course followed if reform is allowed to play out. there would likely have to be financial incentives for docs to follow the guidelines and keep costs in line. i'm all for malpractice reform in general. no argument from me that special interests block it and i find it reprehensible. i'm in total agreement on lifestyle issues. that constitutes much of my argument: less can be more. we are not getting the results we want or value for the massive expense putting catheters, needles, radiation, scalpels, scopes and monitors in and around every orifice of every patient that complains of flatulence, belly aches and restless legs.

of course not. it's widely accepted, which is why i asked how you could question it. nevertheless, the US is arguably the world leader in the use of non evidence based testing and intervention and guess what the motive generally is? profit. look at cardiac ct (calcium scoring)- absolutely no evidence of positive effect on mortality yet almost every hospital or cardiology group is hawking them for screening despite the ACC's insistence that they not be used for screening the general population. what is to be done with a positive result from a cardiac ct? no one really knows but most patients go for cath (and diagnostic cath hasn't been shown to reduce mortality like many other cardiac tests) thus churning more billings and collections. classic example of technology ahead of science but there's no one to apply the brakes. and we wonder why insurance rates increase.

in this study , informing of lung age resulted in 13.6% abstinence rate at 1 year vs 6.3 for control...certainly worth my time in counseling and doubling the abstinence rate at 1 year seems a meaningful change to me...i'll bet the smokers you see who are ultimately successful at quitting and need the extra push would agree... number needed to "treat" (at minimal cost) = 14- bet that's better than nnt for pre anesthesia beta blockers. the point is, evidence, ie the scientific method, matters.

had to wait til i got to my office to find a reference (there are several actually): bmj online DOI:10.1136/bmj.39503.582396.25 "effects on smoking quit rate of telling patients their lung age". since you seem anti evidence based it probably won't sway you, however...just hold on to all those unfounded beliefs and keep telling yourself you know better based on personal observation

and denying care on the basis of insurance coverage is ethical...happens thousands of times every day.

i'm sure he has a price...bills apparently didn't offer it

this, but we have green and bell...should be fine

not illegal to watch

the bills link requires download of XviD. anybody know if that's safe? per dean's recs it's a codec and should probably be avoided but can get directly from Xvid site so i guess this is the way to go?