OCinBuffalo

No. WE all suspected. You read what I wrote, and now you "agree". Who the f makes a bet with their friend about an obscure issue like this, that happened so long ago? And what idiot would bet against it? Who would think it would be anybody else? Why? Who even bets on this in general? Why? Wouldn't somebody have to have a rational alternative to us/Israel to make a bet like this? What is that alternative, booster, you moron? Why tell us about a bet that almost certainly doesn't exist?....oh, that's right, so that you can pretend that you figured this out on your own, and then were so "smart", you bet somebody that you were right. Yeah, this is all very feasible. Ahh, booster...it must suck not to be able to analyze things before you post them. Or, it must suck that they only people you can hang out with have to be as simple as you.

This is what boggles me about birdog's support of Obamacare. As if the state surveyors, joint commission, etc. don't cause enough problems....he wants CMS to have ANOTHER 1000s of pages of regulations that they can come in and waste even more millions of "care hours" on useless dreck that does nothing to improve quality or God Forbid, cut cost. They don't even know the basics of quality assurance, as evidenced of every single work product I have seen from HHS. Hey Tom, I showed you some hysterical stuff last time. Want Moar Sauce? And, with all these new regs....of course we will have to hire ANOTHER 20k people at HHS, and even more at the state level, all of whom will not improve the quality of care, anywhere in the country, one iota....and all of whom will force provider cost up by an order of magnitude. All this while Birdog is telling me it's not about $$$, while at the same time telling me, "Obamacare is all about lowering costs!"

We have spent the last 10 years being right, every single time, about health care processes, and ALL external effects on them, including governmental, and health care in general. We have nailed root causes, over and over, because we have the only effective way to describe workflow(real workflow, not made up marketing tear-sheet buzzword = Cerner, McKesson, etc.) in health care...but there's a chance I might have missed something. Are you aware of the comprehensive understanding one must have to do this? Look, if you want me to start writing 3 page posts on this material, its on your head. Otherwise, we will have to operate on the assumption that what I do, and the analysis based on it, is quite complete indeed. I said, "as an organization". You are absolutely right to say that INDIVIDUALLY, you all know what you are about....and that's a primary part of the problem. You don't know what anybody else is about, and most of you don't care...until whatever they are about effects one of you. Then, it's "throw money at it!", "who cares if we have to pay the nurses double time?!", "and no, I'm not interested in how we avoid throwing $232,458 away next time, I'm a doctor, and I have better things to do!" Health care HAD no proven way of PROPERLY studying care processes, universally and in detail. Until you all do, costs will continue to rise. Regarding those that serve your industry: Put it this way: I agree 100% with you. But, while this is what you feel, it's what I KNOW. I know, because I have the quantitative data and/or information and/or analytics to prove it. Put it another way: The last time I went to HIMMS, I couldn't find one person who could tell me the proper definition of workflow. Most of the IT people I have encountered in health care...would only be hired as IT people, in health care. It's not even incompetence...it's flat out ignorance. Right now, it suits me fine to be the only one eyed man in the kingdom of the "don't even know I'm blind".

Oh, please...another non-denial denial. You wish this was all a joke, don't you there "I'm gonna tell the teacher!" guy? The problem for you GG is: It's not even that I don't give a f what you think, it's that actually, I can't. Truthfully. Unless you are the world's best troll, I recognize you. You are the same guy I have been crushing most of my life, telling me why "it can't be done", "costs too much", get's pissed when I convince his boss to ignore him, intransigent, petulant, etc. I have left a long line of defeated GGs in my wake, so I know a GG when I see one. I'm simply not capable of caring what you think, because I've never gotten anything from it. What you think is always massively predicated on, and distorted by, protocol, method, and form while ignoring effectiveness and opportunity, and therefore, it's useless. OTOH, people like you are 100% dependent on what people like me think, and always will be. The fun part is that you are obviously aware of that. Enjoy!

Swing and a miss. You were asked to provide legal and/or historical analysis of the basis for progressive taxation. The key word there was not "progressive taxation" or "legal and/or historical". The key word there was "analysis". I purposely framed that sentence in that format because a linear thinker like yourself is incapable of analysis and/or abstract thought, and you neatly and completely proved that with your linear "dis is what id do" response. Your..."thoughts"? Please. Let's tell the truth here: These "thoughts" aren't yours. No different than your "contribution" to any thread on this board, you read what somebody else wrote, and suddenly the author's thoughts become "yours". The only difference between you and conner is: his dipstickery is politically motivated and intentional. You simply don't know any better. The truly funny pat is: you spent all that time on your post, only to walk right into it, again. Thanks for your "gift".

Beat me to the Franco thing. The only news here is: that the New York Times thinks that the US and Isreal being behind a virus attack on Iran's nuclear program....is news.

And in doing so, you get them overpriced bloatware that doesn't speak to their business processes/rules, and provides no way for organizational memory to be created? Then, you wonder why we have 2, 10-person departments, sitting 10 feet from each other, whose entire job is to create near-identical(2 fields difference) spreadsheets.* Each month, the same thing, and it takes them the entire month to close each division's/region's books, people can't take vacation or it's a-holes and elbows for everybody else.....but at least they have a common work environment = file server where they can save those spreadsheets? FAIL! *First Tennessee Mortgage, Addison, Texas, 1999. Root cause: two pissant VPs that hated each other, the "common work environment" was just the vehicle

I've never heard of "congress on the state level". When somebody says, and capitalizes, Congress, I think Federal. Nope. There are no real cons to letting counties deal with county problems. Example: The belief that Medicare needs to be Federal is based on a pack of lies, or at the very least, misconceptions. Want to destroy Medicare fraud permanently? Move it to the county, done. It comes down to: how much care/money are we willing to spend, to take care of a member of our county who needs help? It's a simple decision, that only becomes more complicated, and more expensive, as you force up to the state and Federal level. New York counties were facing being bankrupted by Medicaid 2-5 years before the recession hit. Why? Because of Federal and state unfunded mandates. As I always say: competition is the key. Let counties decide for themselves what they are willing to pay. And let the chips fall. Some counties can require a certain amount of residence time, to keep people from jumping when they get old, etc. In all cases, let them do whatever they want.

The problem is: liberal politicians treat government agencies as jobs programs and wealth redistribution centers, instead of focusing on the job the agency is supposed to do. Which causes the next problem: conservative politicians get frustrated and rightly convince the people sweep them into power, and then they wrongly proceed to throw the baby, bathwater, tub, and half the bathroom, out the window. Which causes the next problem: all hell breaks lose and the liberal politicians demagogue the whole issue, instead of rightly promising to stop the jobs program thing and focus on results. Which causes the next problem: if the demagoguing works, and the liberals get power, it's right back to all jobs program/wealth redistribution and 0 results/accountability. if the demagoguing fails, and conservatives keep power, eventually the problem is ignored, but doesn't go away... ...and then we end up with what we have in Arizona. Once again, I have no problem with most liberal motives, it's their methods that suck. Likewise, I have no problem with most conservative motives, it's their methods that suck as well.

Actually, I've worked in the 10 major industries including the government...and health care is by far the most F'ed in terms of knowing what they are about as an organization at any given moment during the day. Just the other day, had a Department Head RN tell me: "I didn't get into nursing to manage". My response: "Do you think I got into consulting to fill out time sheets?" They think they are absolved of everything every other worker in every other industry has to do, because they give care. You want to know why the cost keeps going up? "It's a mystery!" Spoken like a hardware guy.

You can joke all you want, but, you never miss a chance to be critical of internet business, or, come down on the side of screwing us with taxes, regulation, or whatever. Since I have been here, every single time the "tax the internet" issue, or something similar comes up, you go on the warpath. Why? Because you like us? See, the hostility rears it's ugly head! There would be no need for things to break so often if you people would make a damn decision and stick with it. (uh, actually, keep not doing that please. My bundle is sorta predicated on you acting the way you always have. )

I didn't know any of this, and I've been here a while. I did take those 4 months off due to a difficult project... ...in any event, that's why I refused to joke about it, because I have a close friend who is bipolar, and has struggled. I have no problem with broadening the issue to include the homeless, provided local problems are handled locally. I never implied that the sheriff can personally commit someone all by himself. I did say that of the people who work for any county, public safety is the sheriff's purview. If anything, person, dog, butterfly, exhibits a pattern of behavior that presents a risk to public safety, I don't see why its a stretch to assume the sheriff should do something about it. That's where I think the sketchyness comes in: I sincerely doubt that the terms "screening" or "voluntary outpatient evaluation" NEVER crossed this sheriff's mind in relation to Loughner. How could they not? Of course he knew who Loughner was, how could he not? And, "Mom worked for the County" makes this look bad, really bad. Unless the sheriff truly is an idiot, as you say, he had to know how bad all of this would look. Again, I ask: since when has seriously, violently, mentally disturbed been a status to which anyone has a right? That's news to me if that is so.

You missed it. Back in the day, the media was a feudal system, with local anchors serving their national masters. God help you if you didn't report the story the way corporate demanded. God help you if you tried to sell a local story nationally, that wasn't presented per corporate standards(read: with appropriate bias). If you towed the line, some day you might get promoted to the national office, and, as a reporter, if you ever deviated from the holy writ, you were done, and had no chance of getting a job anywhere. That was the bad old days, and that was when the Media was free to attack anyone with impunity, and could be as incompetent as they pleased. That's when we served them. Put it this way: no way Dan Rather loses his job if he pulled the same stunt he tried to pull on Bush on Reagan jut before the 1984 election. Nobody would have had any way to inspect his bogus letter. Today, that letter was busted in 15 minutes, but a Professor of Fonts, of all things, on the internet. Welcome to the "good new days". You should be happy that you never had to put up with the old nonsense. You didn't miss anything.

Apples and Oranges comparison. People aren't intellectually switched on when watching Idol, or the rest of the crap. They are looking to consume a different product. Nobody analyzes the performance of Idol judges, etc., because there's nothing to base that analysis on. Example: Who cares what a judge said 3 shows ago? Who even remembers? The point I have made over and over: things are in flux right now. There is next to 0 rigidity, or barriers to entry, to the news media market, and that's a good thing. Any fool with a website can start reporting/analyzing the news. I would venture to guess that some of the regulars here get more news here, than they do anywhere else. Which is disturbing Sooner or later, like with every other emerging market, consolidation will occur. Eventually, the best performers will gain a tenuous position. But, the low barrier to entry ensures that they will have to keep performing or risk immediate loss of market share. This is what we want for the news media: absolute accountability, or swift and severe punishment. That beats the hell out of the days when the Walter Cronkites could lose wars for this country. That will only happen if the government stays the f out, and isn't given the opportunity to start artificially picking winners and losers, like it always does.

Oh boy.... Perhaps not the best thing to say on a message board know for its scurrilous, but funny, personal attacks. I will leave the cheap shots to others. Where is TheDean anyway? Yes, Tom, we understand that you know the law(again, I will leave the jokes to others)....and that you can take one thing that I said, ignore all the rest, and pretend that's the only piece of evidence we have. Again, I ask: what is the most likely reason for the sheriff's comments? Is the sheriff nuts too, or, did he try to cover his ass?

For me: Limbaugh is past his prime and fading. He used to be funny, which is why I used to listen. He's just not quick anymore. He misses a lot more than he hits now. Beck, Jesus, you never know what you are going to get. I keep my finger on the remote when he's on. Sometimes he's extremely insightful, and his research is pretty darn good, but, when he starts impersonating Andy Griffith's character from "A Face in the Crowd", I press the button. If I want to know today's Republican talking points, I switch on Hannity He is a living, breathing position memo. But, you are right, NONE of these guys speak from actual hatred. In contrast, the hatred is so clear when you turn on Olbermann, or that Ed guy, it's friggin palpable.

As I have stated multiple times, there was a slew of things, all indicative of the same pattern. So, you googled the law, read it, and returned here an expert? Please. Or did you change your Ph.D. from Physics to Psychology in the last 45 minutes? Ok Mr. Scientist: Occam's razor! What's more likely: that the sheriff truly believes that "political discourse" caused this guy to start shooting people, or, the sheriff knew he had give this kid a pass multiple times because his mom worked for the county, and lamely tried to deflect attention from that. Jesus, you can't be that naive. Why the F else would this sheriff immediately come out with the political crap? If he's that irrational, then that's the reason he needs to go.

Well, since the "currency" of media is ratings, and ratings are what they are, it's fairly easy to determine who is doing quality work, and who isn't. Sure, I understand that a lot of people like to be told what they want to hear. But, that also defines the market, and the spaces in it. If MSNBC refuses to see the market as it is, then, we can expect them to get the exact ratings that they currently get, and stay in their little, irrelevant space. Competition is the key to making things better, and it always has been. Only a fool believes that everybody who watches FOX, for example, or listens to Limbaugh, is a hardcore conservative. If that were the case, both would not enjoy the ratings successes they have. Only a fool believes that the original 3 stations, and the NYT, wasn't massively biased. And, their failure to keep hold of their market positions, once serious competition was introduced, clearly demonstrates that.

You are right to say that we can't "know" for sure about anything. Yet. I would like to see an investigation by the Arizona state police. But, really? That's for the people that live there to decide. I defer to them. Again, I think that's for each local community to decide. I sure as hell don't want some massive Federal bureaucracy to decide. You take one look at CMS, and that's all you need to know. (Medicare and Medicaid should be disbanded and that power given to each county, for example...and oh hell yeah, I can back that up) I don't want Congress to have anything to do with local law enforcement issues that don't cross state lines. How does somebody in DC know better what to do about local crazy guy than local sheriff guy? (or local Alzheimer's patient than local county health official?) I find it interesting, and telling, that your proposed "solution" immediately involved the Federal government.......

You don't seem to understand the concept of diversification then? (EDIT: and BS flag on not changing your point ) Back when we had 3 channels, and the New York Times was the paper of record, there was no accountability, and these organizations had absolute power to not only report the news, but to tell people what it meant. The Dan Rather scandal represents the end of that age. He was ass-raped by the internet. A perfect ending to the "bad old days". Now, as MSNBC demonstrates, low-quality news reporting means low ratings, and eventually, removal from the market. Once again, the free market triumphs over all other approaches. Why do you think the left wants the government to meddle with the media market? Answer: because they don't want the game to be fair, and they sure as hell don't want to have to try to sell their awful ideas in the free market.

As I have said: I smell BS. The irrational "political discourse" thing from the sheriff screams CYA. Perhaps you are right, but then, why are we willing to live with this situation? It's not like we don't spend enough on police(except in Philly). So, what are we saying: the current law doesn't mandate that we lock people up before the fact? Ok, so why aren't we sentencing people to mandatory counseling and observation(kind of like parole)? We have all these government employees that we have to keep paying massive benefits/pensions, is it too much to ask that they do their jobs?

So, you've changed your point from degree of hatefulness, to frequency and duration, right? Like I said: media has changed. The 24-hour news cycle, the exposure, etc. You should be happy then, that FOX news and the internet exists now. We can't stop the deluge of information to which we are now exposed. However, thankfully, we now have diversity. And, this is a case where diversification ensures quality. As I have said in the past, all of this will eventually settle down. News outfits are now being held accountable more than they ever have been in the past. This is a good thing, no matter your political views.

I see a pattern that should have easily been recognized. Sure, you can say "hindsight". But, I don't think so. We can disagree on whether the pattern was strong enough to merit action, but not on whether it existed. This looks like CYA to me. It has every indicator: especially the sheriff coming out the the irrational "political discourse" thing. This looks like a lame attempt at deflecting the question: why was this guy not locked up? What does his mom have to do with it? <-- That's a perfectly reasonable question. All the kids I knew in high school whose parents were public officials consistently held themselves to a higher standard, because they knew what awaited them if they made their parent look bad.

Your point: today's discourse is MORE hateful than in past years. I refute that by offering "Dusky Sally" and Thomas Nast. Two obvious cases of hateful discourse. WTF? If you are familiar with Nast, etc., then WTF are you talking about?

Pfft! Still waiting for you to refute what I said in the other thread. You can't, and you know it, so, once again, you can't debate the content...so it's on the process.