TakeYouToTasker

I'm always wary of special prosecutors. They are enlisted to pursue very specific agendas, but always wind up digging for anything and everything. They become a political witch hunt. For reference: Ken Starr was enlisted to investigate possible wrongdoing in land purchases and the death of Vince Foster, and we wound up with perjury related to blowjobs.

Whenever I go to the Dunkin Donuts drive through and they ask me for my order, I just tell them to make me whatever they want. When they ask why, I tell them "Because you're going to totally disregard my order and make me whatever you want anyway, so this way I can't be pissed that you screwed up my order."

Oh good. We won the offseason again.

Just when you think they can't get any dumber: Wood paneling marginalizes minority students.

This was so obvious to anyone paying attention.

That's because you're trying to treat the meanings of words as malleable in order to bolster your argument. Words have meaning. Social Security is just about the worst investment in the world, and does incredible harm to the working class, as it actively works to prevent dynastic wealth accumulation. The government seizes the "investor's" assets with the promise to repay in retirement with some accumulated interest. The interest paid is not in line with what could be accumulated over an individuals entire working life were they instead allowed to invest the money themselves, is subject to zero fiduciary standards, and can be changed by congress. The money, once an individual and their spouse are deceased, is not paid out to the estate. This "service" is not welfare; it's the confiscation of wealth to the detriment of those who need it most.

Thank God it's not a Bills game.

I missed this as well. Nice catch.

There aren't many men on the planet who can competently play left tackle in the NFL, and Cyrus just might be one of them. If he's able to demonstrate that this incident is an aberration, he might bring back a mid-late round pick, or be a piece in a trade for another player who would be a positive addition to the Bills roster. Given his inability to play on the right side, he's a tough fit for our roster because he really isn't a swing tackle, and a backup offensive lineman who can only play a single position is really a waste of a roster spot. I'd like to see him given a good run out in the preseason to see him establish some value, and them deal him.

We still have a guy who doesn't wear gloves. Did you know the he's Jack Nicklaus' grandson?!?

No one craves the respect of gatorman's cat toy. I see that's all you have left. Great job.

Getting yourself a woman who is a fixer-upper can be very rewarding if she does get fit. You can wind up with a good looking lady with trailer-park morals in the bedroom, who has low self esteem from all the time she spent being fat.

Something that matches the drapes.

Well then, by all means, continue to make a fool of yourself in public; and while you're at it "chef" cook up a little bit more of that righteous indignation. It's a great look for you. /golf clap

Hey man, once you step back and realize exactly what that idiot is, some things become fairly obvious. Feedback is a gift.

Don't shoot the messenger, broheim.

It's sad, but Jim has become his cat toy.

Bill Cosby and Casey Anthony.

This would be fantastic.

You're going to compare organ transplants to common acute care? And while doing so you're going to disregard motive? These changes were made in Britain due to politics because they were aversely impacting outcome data. In the United States the organ transplants are denied to substance abusers because of the nature of the supply of viable human organs for transplant, and the fact that substance abusers whose addictions directly impact the organ they need transplanted and it's acceptance by the receiving body warrant it. Good grief.

By just about every standard. "Outcomes" as graded by the WHO don't make for apples to apples comparisons. A few examples in from the British healthcare system that bear this out: in 2004 British hospitals stopped providing bypass surgery to smokers because wait lists were so long that the higher success rate non-smokers weren't getting their bypass surgery and their "favorable outcome" statistics were harming the system, then in 2005 many entire regions began denying overweight individuals knee and hip replacements for the same reason, and in 2006 the stopped treating patients over the age of 80 for strokes. The United States treats these people, and they are factored into our outcome data. No... no it isn't. Again: "and in the overwhelming majority of Europe individuals are encouraged to accept death rather than be provided care in advanced age." The overwhelming majority of Europe, not the overwhelming amount of individuals in Europe.

1. We have merit based rationing where those who can afford to pay, meaning the vast majority of the population, receive the best health care in the world in a way which is abundant and on-demand; and those who do not have the ability to pay are never refused service. 2. Reading comprehension. The vast majority of European countries, not the vast majority of individuals. But, here's a good jumping off point.

It's not stone tossing. It's a very clear and succinct opposition to a very real and permanent disruption to the way on-demand health care is delivered in this country, which will upend the lives of hundreds of millions of people. People in England and Canada have care rationing, and in the overwhelming majority of Europe individuals are encouraged to accept death rather than be provided care in advanced age. This is well documented. It's a system which strips away the top quality care the overwhelming majority of a country enjoys in order to make sure everyone has access to a lesser quality of care. It's an economic issue. You cannot have care that is universal and abundant, high quality, and cheap. There is no way to incentivize for all three of these variables, because they work against each other. As for alternatives, many have been suggested. I've suggested some in a recent related thread. It's intellectually lazy to say: "No one who disagrees with me has even suggested any alternatives." when exactly the opposite has happened very recently, in this thread and other threads, on the forum you are now reading. Other suggestions

Well, given that actual health care requires providers capable of performing care, I'd say the inability to staff actual doctors capable of performing complex surgeries is kind of a big deal, no? Again, insurance means zilch if it can't get you the medical care you need, and it can't get you the medical care you need if it doesn't compensate those professionals who can deliver that care in a way they deem acceptable. But hey, I'm sure individuals with brain tumors will be thrilled to speak with one of the 250 newly staffed social workers.

Don't worry. Their neurosurgeons, and other high demand specialists, have been replaced with 250 social workers. That's a wash, right?