OCinBuffalo

Heh you think that's bad? Last time I checked, Medicaid only pays long term care providers $32 dollars a day, and they expect the exact same treatment for their patients as those who have private insurance/pay privately. Of course what ends up happening is: care across the board goes down, because the private pay people's money is being used to balance out the shortfalls from the Medicaid people, and there simply isn't the budget to do the job right. And when that happens? Then the government has the gall to come in and say: "Hey you don't have enough staff! You aren't taking care of my Medicaid patients well enough! I am gonna take money away from you!" And then here come the lawyers, adding 0 value and taking even more money out of the system. Cue: those Brown Chiari ads during the Sabres games. Well, no schit Sherlock, of course things ain't right. You get what you pay for. If we have people not paying anything, and the government is paying next to nothing, what in the hell do we expect? There are fundamental problems with how all of this is being done. The good news is: there are enlightened people who know how to fix them. The question is: will they be allowed to do so?

Clearly certain posters have no idea what the federal government's priorities are. We expect that they will do these thing IN ORDER, and if the we don't get to the lower priorities, that's too bad. In order 1. National Defense, to include the defense of our borders 2. Law Enforcement across state lines 3. Diplomacy and Trade Protection with other countries(and the Native Americans) 4. Regulation of the banks and stock exchange 5. Not letting one state "piss in the river" upstream from another state. 6. Regulating/producing Energy 7. Ensuring we have enough food ... 33. The post office Notice that SSN, Medicare, Medicaid and the Health Care abortion, don't make that list, neither does the DoE, or the rest of the foolishness. Democrats need to show us that Big Government can get back to doing 1-7 right, consistently, before I am willing to let them do anything else. It's called a track record, and they have a piss poor one. They have embarrassed themselves by ignoring their top jobs, and somehow they have deluded themselves into thinking that things that aren't on that list are more important than the things that are.

Hehehe

First of all: I saw Cake in Dallas when I was there. Cool show to say the least. Not always sure what that guy is going for, but, it's certainly entertaining. The founders expected this to be the case. They anticipated it, which is part of why the 2nd amendment was created. They knew damn well that people are complacent, not vigilant, by nature. Nobody wants to think ill of their fellow man. Nobody wants to believe that there are truly evil men and women in this world....because it's scary to think these thoughts. It also represents a character test. One many weak people simply can't all pass. So, even though people in Europe in the 30s could clearly see war coming, again, many of them said nothing, or were all too willing to believe in the BS that was being spoon fed to them by the pacifists, appeasers and/or propagandists. They didn't want to have to pass their character test. They blamed others, they obfuscated, they claimed moral superiority(just like the jackasses of today), anything, rather than admit that war was upon them. We did the same thing here with Japan. IF we had fought WWII in the 30s instead of the 40s, millions of lives would have been saved. Instead, we damned the world to holocausts in Europe and in Asia. And why? Because we did everything we could to avoid calling evil, evil, and standing up to it, until we finally had let it get ridiculous and had no choice but to deal with it.

And again, you are hunting for a double standard that doesn't exist. Stevens is giving his interpretation of history, which is not his job. His job is to give us his interpretation of the law, as it is written, no tricks. He has no way of knowing or proving that bearing is as he says. The founders lived in an armed-to-the-teeth world. Alexander Hamilton was killed in a duel for Pete's sake. These men grew up learning to fence and shoot, as a matter of course. To suggest that they could ever even conceive of a future where personal arms were not carried every day, all the time, is a fanciful interpretation of history. I could easily interpret that they never thought they needed to make a law against some fool taking away of the rights of citizens to defend themselves as they see fit. Personal arms were assumed, which is why they wrote the Second the way that they did. In all cases, the carrying of personal arms is exactly as dependent on your personal situation as it was in 1776. Just ask Rosie O'Donnell, or any celebrity, why her personal security guards bear arms, but she is against individuals who can't afford security guards to avail themselves of the same protection.....that's where you will find the double standard you are hunting for... Hell, I have seen the guy that protects Bruce Willis up close and personal, dude has 2 Tech 9s slung under his jacket like some kind of comic book character. You want to talk about who gets guns? You go ahead and start with Mr. Willis.

yeah, that one didn't get the juices flowing like I expected it would. Maybe, now that some are done talking about how much they love their dog, and the rest are done proving how moral they are by going after Vick , it's time to ask the only questions that have any real bearing on our lives.

Whoa! That's a good shot from a long way away. I had to check to make sure it wasn't 4:15am and all the bars were closing....

Answer: In the cupboard in the hall, second drawer on the left, the same place they keep their phony Iraq War "moral superiority". They used to keep their smug, Global Warming superiority next to it, but since that got exposed...they put it, their race card, and their "tolerance" whip(*) all in a box in the basement labeled "Open in 2010, when Republicans are in power again". (* Ever notice how we haven't heard "tolerance" much since it was clearly determined that dog fighting is part of Vick's culture? Guess we DON'T have to be tolerant of every culture? Or do we? We don't know, hence the whip goes away)

Yes, I am really not looking forward to a bunch of people who have never been politically active suddenly coming together and demanding common sense from DC. Boy, what a "fiasco" that will be Still waiting for why we had to elect the Democrats to Congress in 2006 "immediately", to avoid a "fiasco"....

Does anybody care that ACORN was founded for the express purpose of organizing Welfare recipients to become politically active, so that they could demand even MORE Welfare benefits? Seriously, WTF? They can't bring themselves to go get jobs, but, they can bring themselves to organize and get free money? Does anybody care that the ACORN founders themselves are so morally bankrupt, that they embezzled money from this organization they created, whose sole purpose is to corrupt the political process? My evidence is incontrovertable: they got arrested, and have been indicted for voter fraud in 15+ states. The videos are embarrassing, I get it. But, why in the hell is that more important that the ludicrous premise this organization is based on, or, the obvious, and consistent malfeasance of the people that run it? Lock them up, cut their funds permanently and never pay tax dollars to ridiculous people like this ever again. Problem solved. Time to move on to the next one.

Fully as expected. No straight answer there. Um you mean, like, if you can't afford to pay for something, you don't get to buy it? EDIT: ...and we wonder where all this credit card debt comes from....amazing. Or, most likely, you spent all your money on the 'essentials' and there's no money left for health care? That kind of rationing? God forbid that we live in a world where personal choices and their consequences are borne by the ones that make them. I forgot, "it takes a village" right? It's not my fault that trailer park Jimmy Squirrel wants to spend his money on lottery tickets and beer instead of his own health care, but, I have to pay for it anyway.... ...because we don't want to "economically ration" it away from him. Laughable.

Well then, you should ask yourself why, in the Health Care Utopia to our North in Canada, the very practice you are describing is happening...but...differently. You see, it's not the same old whipping boy, "the rich" who are setting up private clinics there. In fact, it is the doctors there setting up their own private clinics, and offering modest fees for service to the middle class. So, the problem, as you have defined it, seems to be happening, whether single payer is in place or not. So, I don't see how implementing yet another massive bureaucracy gets us anywhere, since, the one in Canada hasn't removed the dreaded "fee for service" model you are obsessing over. Yes, single payer solves none of the supply problems, none of the provider cost problems, and none of the demand problems. So, exactly what does it solve? Besides, you know, the need for misguided fools to delude themselves into thinking they need to "beat business"? Do me a favor, tell me how artificially lowering the price of something or giving it away for free, without increasing supply, and holding demand constant(a gift for you), does not lead to scarcity of that good/service. While you are at it, define exactly how scarcity WILL NOT lead to rationing. (As if I will ever get a straight answer to that one. The answer is: But, I might as well try. Others may learn something)

Yes we are soooo ignorant. You have confused ignorance with caring. People know what's happening. They just don't want to hear the details or the whining. We want results. The simple fact of the matter, both at the state and Federal level, is: Government has gotten too big to be "sustainable"(God I love using that word against the dolts). Medicare is going out of business in 7 years, 8 tops. That's not sustainable(tee hee did it again ). No amount of hemming and hawing and blaming the American people is going to fix that. Real solutions are required. I have heard exactly squat. In fact, the only thing I have heard is: "Let's raid medicare to pay for the new health care nonsense". Somebody remind me again why we had to elect the Democrats to Congress in 2006 immediately, or the country would be in big trouble..... The simplicity of this is mind numbing: you can't create a government that only works when the economy is booming, and is solely predicated on taking investment money away from people who create jobs. IF we are supposed to believe that we can't live without massive government, then that means it has to work, in all seasons, or it needs to go. Edit: along with the people who keep saying that we can't live without it. And you know what? I don't care. They made this mess starting with FDR, LBJ, and right on through to Little Lord Obamaroy. If they won't fix it, it will have to die. I couldn't care less, and I am certainly not "ignorant", especially not when it comes to Medicare. I don't have a problem with liberal philosophy, and it's fair to say these are noble ideas. But, I have a massive problem with the economically stupid solutions they create in a failed effort to support that philosophy. They never learn from their mistakes. One after the other, it's always the same cycle of fail/blame everybody else/fail.

On second thought, looks like you are right. Oh well, just take that post and redirect it to anybody who doesn't seem to know the difference between what is enumerated in the Constitution and what isn't.

Then why didn't the "progressives" who wrote the health care bill insert this simple solution, and instead, have government bureaucrats make the decision? Answer: Because doctors can't be controlled, and because they know that they can threaten a bureaucrat and that bureaucrat will do whatever is demanded, since, the bureaucrat only has that job due to the "progressives" that put him there.

This is true but not for the reasons you are implying. Health Insurance companies simply cannot control cost by refusing to pay more, or paying less, etc. That is merely messing about with the revenue of a health care provider. No, the only way to really control cost overall is to control the cost of the providers. You are blaming health insurance companies for problems that aren't in their business models. They react to increasing provider cost, they don't create it. Bullschit. Do more, make more always works in every industry, and always will. If we had more primary care physicians, health care cost would go down. If we adjust standards/practices/laws to allow PAs and RNs to do more, by handling most of care process, health care cost would go down. If we had systems that were about helping doctors and nurses do their business processes as priority #1, and less about being used to defend against d-bag lawyers looking for another handout, health care cost would go down. If we removed the government dolts currently in charge of regulation, and replaced them with professional Quality Assurance firms from the private sector, provider costs would plummet, and quality of care would double at least. I could fill 3 pages with these. So please, let's dispense with the BS. There is plenty of "doing more" that can be done, and plenty of "allowing more to be done" as well. There is plenty of making more that can be done. If there are more people who can provide care, then the cost of care drops. Unfortunately, exactly NONE of these issues are addressed by the health care abortion that was passed. And, NONE of these issues are ever even mentioned by "progressives", never mind whether they propose any serious solutions to them. Your premise is BS, therefore, the rest of your argument, that is based on it, is BS as well. Fix your premises, or get new ones, and stop pretending that all roads lead to your conclusion, single payer, without solving any of the real problems, or even addressing them, along the way.

It's pretty simple really. But, it seems you are struggling with the concepts here. Let me clarify it for you: If it's in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, like the 2nd amendment is, then the states aren't allowed to f with it. If it's some dreamed up nonsense that has no basis in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or basic reason, like the Healthcare Abortion, then the states are allowed to protect themselves and their citizens from said abortion using all legal methods. Oh, and there's nothing in the Constitution about "right to abortion" for that matter. There is "right to life" in the Declaration, but, that's not the Constitution. So, your "morning after pill" example has no bearing on this, and changes nothing. There is 0 hypocrisy here. There is 100% following the law, as already written, for 230+ years. If it ain't in the Constitution, then it can be debated, if it is, it can't....by the Supreme Court. There is a process for repealing Amendments. You are free to avail yourself of that process. The Supreme Court has nothing to do with it, and until such time as the 2nd amendment is repealed? They are legally bound, as in, they have no choice, but to uphold the law.

This is a difficult issue to be sure. My own experience was that both of my grandfathers were turned into science experiments in the last 6 months, with no value added to their lives, or ours. Instead we had doctors going all out spending God knows what, and simply prolonging the inevitable. One of my grandfather's had Alzheimer's, the worst stage, which means you are going to die within the year, no exceptions. With this knowledge, they were still talking about saving kidneys and they installed a pacemaker? So...he could go on...suffering by not knowing who we were, where he was, how to get to the bathroom, most of the time? The real problem is: the "Death Panel" concept. Obviously, we see that it is a political death sentence for anyone who supports it. And, it's easy for the usual far-right religious nuts to pile on if anyone dares talk about not "doing everything". Another problem is: nobody, and I mean nobody, knows how they are going to feel about this kind of death, until it is upon them. Plenty of people have faced death. But, not this kind. Health care proxies and other tools are useful, but they simply don't prepare the person, and more importantly, they family for this kind of long suffering death. Another problem is: why in the hell should I trust government employees with this decision? I wouldn't trust the average government employee with what are "simple" tasks in my company, and I sure as hell don't think they are capable of, never mind if they should, being in charge of something like this. However, I want to be fair: Ok, so let's say we have a few good ones. Let's even say 30% are elite people that could easily get a job and be successful in the corporate world. If that # holds, or even if we go out of our way to get the best people in the "treatment decider" role, the best we can hope for is: 50% of them being good. Sorry, but flipping a coin isn't good enough.

I am telling you: it's only a matter of time before these clowns start blaming the American people, instead of coming to terms with the fact that their old ideology, and the same old mechanisms, simply don't work. Literally, we are about 3-6 months away from Jimmy Carter's "Crisis of Confidence" speech. Here's the simple point that neither he, and the rest of the far-left still don't understand: American's don't lack confidence in themselves, or each other. Americans don't lack confidence in our system of government, or our traditional economic policies. Americans simply lack confidence in YOU, Jimmy(soon to be Obama), and your retarded ideology. You cannot force Americans to be economically equal, because they will never be, and what makes them unequal is inherent and unique to them. You cannot force people to treat all people the same, because, they don't produce the same. And finally, you cannot base your expectations on everybody producing the same, and making the same good choices, or bad ones, because they simply won't. This world has winners and losers, and as painful as it is to see the losers, we cannot wish them away, or implement a massive government "anti-losing" program, because neither will get real results. No! The blame here lies with the far left, as usual. As we see with the economy, all their wonderful rhetoric produces 0 real results. They either have nothing, or, they have unicorns and rainbows, and neither has a chance at providing real results. Wishing things weren't they way they are/spending money we don't have '= real results....but we are sure to see a lot of that, and then of course, get told it's our fault when they don't work. Perhaps if we just wished/spent a little more, we'd see something happening.

Why do these idiots thing they can solve problem with these big sweeping changes? Why do they HAVE to be big, and why do they HAVE to be sweeping? I hate the argument "yeah, but, we have to do all of it for it to work?" Horsechit. And, even if that was true, then the plan sucks. Anything that has so many dependencies is almost certain to fail, because one of them is certain to not work as planned, and if the whole system is based on everything else, then the whole thing collapses. And, as a professional implementer of systems, I can tell you: we don't go around using the "big bang" as a sound example on which to base methodology.

You, me and 75% of the country.

To make a long story short, and not...verbose, I was at Hyde Park in Niagara Falls last night. A little league baseball game was breaking up, people walking to their cars, as I was walking by. By chance a mother and her son were walking right past me and I distinctly heard the following: Mom: "Hi! Great Game!" Kid: "Yeah. Everybody got game balls, well, not real game balls" Mom: "Oh, well that's good" Kid: "Why? No it isn't. There were kids that didn't even get a hit...." and I didn't hear the rest as I was walking away. I couldn't help but laugh. This kid could not be older than 9. If a 9 year old can figure out that you diminish winners, and disrespect/patronize the losers, by treating them all the same, then why can't the adults? People are created equally, but they don't produce equally. People that don't produce shouldn't expect = treatment, and this 9 year old knows why....

Pfft. If I got paid back what I put in Medicare under your terms? I'd turn that + my additional saving for elder care into at least $2-3 million dollars by the time I was 65. With that kind of money, I wil self-insure. And I will tell HCFA....and CMS, and all the rest of the stooges, to kiss my ass. You might want to go back to the drawing board with this argument, because far too many people will take it. If the government stopped taking my money, and let me invest it and provide for my own elder care arrangements, which I have every intention of doing anyway, I would be overjoyed. Besides, per my signature, you can spare me the BS: these programs aren't going to be around for me anyway. I would absolutely love to opt out of every single FDR/LBJ abortion immediately. There is simply no way in hell the JV team, at best, at the government knows better than I do what to do with money. That may not be true for everyone, but the fact that it is true for most people means we shouldn't be forcing everyone into something they neither want or need. That's not "the land of the free" that is "the land of the lowest common denominator". No thank you, that's not America. The ridiculous reimbursement structure that comes from HCFA alone proves my point. Ever seen an MDS? The ONLY people who would consider that to be a solid piece of quality assurance work....are the JV team at the government. If one of my people came to me and said they wanted to deliver that piece of schit to one of our clients? They better run, fast.

Blowhard? Not sure that's how I would describe him. How about? Machiavellian pragmatist? Or, absolute, winner take all, patriot? You can say what you want to disparage the guy(Haliburton!), but at least he is as sincere as they come, he believes in what he did as his duty to this country. Maybe he is wrong, that would certainly be nice, but I doubt it. Maybe Obama will talk Iran's nukes away. It's not impossible, but, I will take any odds against it working.

Alexander left all the villages, and went deep into India, which might as have well been another planet, for Pete's sake, and basically never came back. So no, your assertion is not correct. The power to keep Alexander's word was given to his "satrapes" governors. I am merely suggesting that we establish a new form of the satrapes system, whose power is derived from the Parliament, and managed by them as well. Oh, and the satrapes system? Not Alexander's idea, they were already there. He was smart enough to integrate the principles of government he needed into the existing system of government. We can do the same damn thing, and why we didn't I will never, ever, know. It has needlessly cost us lives, and it's a shameful display of historical incompetence. All we are doing is facilitating a deal with the chief, that either party, Parliament or Chief, can renegotiate every year/6 months. It's not an occupation, because he isn't making a deal to give us things, his deal is with the Parliament, and his promise is to support it's army with troops and supplies in case of war, to keep interlopers out of his territory, and call for help if he can't. We are mere facilitators. We can also serve as arbitrators. We don't need a lot of people in the country to get this done, we do to start, but once we have proven ourselves, that's that. After the fact, we can be their air force, and until we train up theirs, and they fund theirs. We can also be the #1 purchaser of their poppies, effectively kill the heroin market, corner it, and sell wholesale to the world's pharma companies....for a nice tidy profit that helps pay for goats...along with denying a source of income to the terrorists....how? We buy ALL the poppies, but we don't pay cash. (that's called a: monopoly, for the progressives reading this ) We negotiate and barter...just like they do. Back to the American goats/sheep. Hopefully we get some Canadian/English sheep in the mix too...maybe the French will send some perfume? Germans can send some sausage....and on and on. For the price of basic consumer goods we can keep the whole country terror/drug free....provided we get what we want, consistent participation and support of the Chiefs Parliament..... see how important goats are in this?