dayman

Shall I **** in your mouth?

Did not realize the elderly were so split last election. Either way if he can't put forth concrete examples of what Medicare benefits will be destroyed then I don't see how he's going to turn this into anything significant.

Yes very good 3rdnlng. And food goes in mouth, poop comes out butt.

Well Federal Authority actually exists. So maybe the "liberal zealots" worshiping it are misguided but at least they aren't insane.

So what's the point here? That he'll stir up a bunch of scare tactics concerning Medicare just to secure the Medicare vote that would rather die than vote Obama anyway?

I was just being facetious w/ that post

True farm team would turn my interest from 0% to 100%. That would be exciting.

Haha. If there's one thing Palin can do it's generate a little ratings.

I did an independent analysis and confirmed the study has proven beyond a doubt that the conservative ideas are the primordial default in our lizard brains and all the liberal ideas are heightened, evolved thinking that should rule society.

The Obama guy?

You won't. Can't be predicted honestly. At least if one guy says one thing there is another saying the opposite. My uninformed opinion.

I'm real concerned about that. Thanks for the heads up.

I support this article. haha...if for nothing else than to see the most conservative of conservative flip out

The additional obligations, when combined with existing Medicare and Medicaid funding shortfalls, leaves taxpayers on the hook for an extra $82 trillion over the next 75 years. LOL Talk about a useful article.

Let's go BOOZE! LET'S GO BOOZE!

Based on the questioning you would think that this court would have opposed income tax, social security, etc. I'm sure if they want to they'll ignore Wickard.

rooster sizes?

It's just bad for the average person there's a veil of propaganda over the eyes of the voting body that votes for tort reform. When you are injured you get a day in court to make your case and an arbitrary cap won't provide justice (and isn't constitutional) when every case is different. This is how the court's work, this is a question of fact for the jury to decide. Tort reform is not the answer. "It'll save costs though!"...well ya...save costs in what manner? Taking money away from an injured plaintiff who made their case and a jury of their peers awarded them a set amount they found compensated them for their injury. That isn't the way we want to save on costs. People before profits. People's rights before corporate lobbying. If that makes me a leftist nut to you then I'm ok with that. EDIT: Also most studies show the impact damage awards actually have on medical costs in negligible. It's more the pay-for-service system and patients higher service expectations than defensive medicine. Also, the concept of "frivolous lawsuits" being out of control is complete propaganda. Tort reform is simply an industry trying to limit individuals ability to obtain fair compensation for their injuries.

*yawn* ...can't believe you all "debated" that situation for 20+ pages...

I don't see why that is the case. If a company wants to do business in a state, comply with the law in that state. That's the case in many industries. The states regulate many things. LOL, please God no.

Haha, I am not as you and some others must think. Fairly moderate. You all are so combative it's hard to be moderate though. Well if that isn't a set up for a Romney joke I don't know what is haha...

FYI DC Tom, it was sort of interesting the scenario you put forth a while back and all I could say is nobody talks about that problem, no lawyers, no economists etc...I did a little snooping today about my day and found out why. I don't have a link for you b/c I just asked a lady I know who works in regulatory affairs and has worked with congress and directly with the white house on this very bill. She said the simple answer is buried in the bill you will see that it is impossible to simply do the cost benefit analysis, pay the fine when you are young and healthy, and then purchase. If you get a preexisting injury during that time if you do that then you are SOL despite the guarantee issue. AND on top of that apparently there's a scheme where if you don't get it when you can you get "locked out" of the market for a set period of time or something also...don't have have all the exact facts but just figured I'd put that out there. Nice point you made there though, it's not like any of us have read all those pages. Got me thinking anyway, but just so you know the Bill accounts for your scenario. It figures in all it's length they've thought about at least the most basic of problems. Haha, I was being sarcastic man. Certainly wasn't proposing some crazy world.

Well candy bars are smaller now, so I guess we're on the right track. hehe

I think everyone agrees any policy based on people actually doing anything differently not a very wise one. Who knows though, we're probably 5 years a way from cigs being $20 a pack (at least in the city) so maybe at one point there will be no more daily smokers. Now if we can only do that for all other goods that hurt us (all goods).

You can't. The real question is how can we make our system more efficient giving high cost services to those who need it, and lower cost service to those who do not.