OCinBuffalo

Since you said one, and then changed it to the other? Look, I don't care. All I did was tell you what I've heard, it's not to bust on you. Regarding consensus? Here's my hypothesis, based on the behavior I've observed: If you put a "regular" Jew in a room with an Orthodox one, and asked both what they thought about this? The regular Jew would defer to the Orthodox guy, and he would tell you what I've said, probably around 9/10 times. Largely because: the regular guy now hates you for putting him in this room, and asking that or any other question like it. I imagine regular guy might even start heading for the doors/windows 8/10 times, because he doesn't want this experiment to turn into a 5 hour, guilt-ridden diatribe on the various ways he sucks at being Jewish. The 2/10 times? That's the poor bastards who don't know yet. One thing I know to be true: The people who quote the Bible literally, and not largely as parable, as a way to enforce their Christian view upon others are eqally as dopey as The people who quote the Bible literally, and not largely as parable, as a way to enforce their atheist view upon others It's just common sense: how would you explain evolution or DNA seeding to a caveman, or a guy who just figured out animal husbandry 2 days ago? Christ, we can't get the relatively basic concepts of "cost" or "falsification of a theory" through to some of the supposedly evolved here. You wouldn't. Instead, you'd use a metaphor. God is all-knowing. Therefore it's fairly easy for us to assume an all-knowing entity... ...would know his audience.

Yes, yes, whatever. Besides, I said, I don't know where to begin, did I not? What the hell do you want? You want to begin with that? Go ahead! I'd rather stick to the same old thing we see with government-anything: sooner or later it's always about pay-offs. Some questions? Why does anyone ever need to do side payments with these "low per capita spending" systems? What could the possible motivation be? Why would one doctor get paid off more than another one? Why would another doctor not get any payoff? Do I detect a market at work?

So, after I specifically point out that it doesn't arbitrarily cost $41k for a hip replacement? Now it doesn't matter what it costs? OK, so much for that dopey meme then. Now, to your next point: tell me which country on that list doesn't have socialist health care? (See...this is where they think they are going to win) All of them you say? Ok, and how many of them "manage costs" by simply not paying for things, or paying a pittance for it? Or, denying cancer treatment, or, denying organ transplants...basically the highest ticket items? How many of them have private insurance that runs right along side, paid by employers, because if you don't have it....then you are subjected to rationing? Answer: ALL of them. Is private insurance spending included in your graph, or don't you even know to ask that question? Why do you need private insurance at all...in Japan...if the government insurance is the answer? Hey, I know: let's talk some Japan health care, shall we? Think that list is exhuastive? Nope! Now here's a real shocker coming up next. It's not like we see the exact same thing happening everywhere socialized medicine exists: (and here's right around the point where they realize, oh crap, by using this dopey graph, I'm not winning, I'm making his point for him) Um....how does your graph look now? Does it account for the common and condoned side payments? Factor that in did ya? And how about this? Yeah....nothing like an objective graph that talks about "spending", but not actually about COST! If you refuse to pay for things, or have a government bureacrat(s) decide that "you've lived long enough, and certainly aren't worth dropping $300k on for a heart transplant"? By defintion, you're going to generate lower "per capita health spending". Yeah: if it's your policy not to spend money on the life-saving stuff = high cost stuff, you will amazingly find yourself: spending less money. Got any more tautological "insight" for us? Or, are you still stuck on the common and condoned illegal side-payments? Ah, see? Where was all this nuance in your douchy little $41k hip replacement meme birdog? The point is: all the things we can do with $41k.....but not realize that a US citizen will NEVER EVER go to Spain and get a hip replacement for anything less than $41k, you twit. You did know this stuff, and were just being a giant D-bag before. That's OK, as long as you are willing come clean now. The simple fact is: (and I'm currently proving this every single day recently) ALL patients are different, with different needs and therefore, different costs. One wonders then: why in God's name any supposedly rational doctor is willing to subscribe to a "one-size-fits-all" health care schema..... You really have no idea what the word cost means, do you? As we've demonstrated above, you think COST = spending. Therefore, you don't have any idea how to reduce cost, or how to even begin building a plan to reduce cost. It's bizarre really, somebody talking about cost as though it's some abstract thing like "anger". You: "Yes, this thing over here will "reduce anger" for no other reason than, I believe it will." Your assumptions here are so backward, as I've stated above, that it's hard to know where to begin fixing you.

It would be helpful...if somebody could define for me what a true libertarian conservative is. For example, is Scott Walker a true libertartian conservative?

Hmm. How does that square...with Obamacare?

No look post( look at the title only): Why? According to many here, the TEA party has been dead for quite some time now. Yes, birdog especially is puzzled by your thread.

Most people won't get this point but: why the hell would you blame a diplomat for not doing security properly? By definition, diplomats are the OPPOSITE of the military, in practically every way imaginable. The military/CIA DS people are responsible for security. Diplomats aren't the people you blame when security is the question. Diplomats are supposed to be on the side of "we need less security, since we've accomplished so much here, together with country X", etc. It's BS, but, that's what the State Department routinely espouses, and that's fine, because here's what we pay them for: non-violent solutions to everything. We pay the military, primarily, for "extremely violent, and therefore quick, solutions to everything". So why would you blame a diplomat for doing something that isn't his job?

Because... oh...wait...birdog should know the answer...let's see what he says: well, so much for that idea. Birdog is either being clueless on purpose, or he really doesn't understand how his own industry actually works. JuanGuzman: The reason most orthos take both Medicare/Medicaid and private insurance? Because they've got a contract with a hospital where they do their surgery. Most hospitals take Medicare/Medicaid(because they are likely to be forced to at the emergency room anyway), so, part of that contract says the othro will take Medicare/Medicaid as well. That, and many doctors actually, with a straight face, believe they are doing the right thing by taking Medicare/Medicaid. It's like Pro Bono for lawyers. They don't mind doing the extra hip replacement here and there. If they have to do a lot, they have to balance things out, as I've said. Which, is why they don't make that big of a deal out of having to take on Medicare/Medicaid patients. The whole point of all of this remains: Government Health Care "cuts" its "cost" by not paying its bills. Moving to a 100% government system means moving 100% toward decreased quality and efficiency. You cannot take money out of the system abitrarily, by simply refusing to pay the full price for what you are getting no matter the quality, and expect quality to be maintained. Why would anyone deliver a quality service, when they get paid the same for delivering a "budget" service? Of course I noticed the aussie email. That's hilarious. Now, explain to everyone here why you are spreading a lie about "hip replacement".

It's hilarious that you don't see.....nope...not gonna tell you. But, by all means, continue. Far be it from me to do anything to prevent you from stepping in it over and over. Since when do the words "son of God" = the words "true prophet of God"? Now way dingleberry. Notice how you changed what you "said", so now...you're not "wrong"? Come now, you're dealing with me here. Perhaps you need to be reminded what I do, and why what I do can only be done by people who are infinitely smarter than you are?

A suance?

Thanks, and, I hope you are right. Which....is why Pettine put in his conditions on the contract, and stare them down. They don't have a choice now: they'll have to take it. Aren't you a lawyer? Well, then you should know: this negotiation is Pettine-sided , because he has the credibility, he doesn't need them as much as they need him, and he's operating off of success, while they are operating off of failure. The FO are the people with the credibility problem, not Pettine. The FO just got done firing the guy they hired, after 1 year. Pettine just got done making a Defense set records, and coaching the DROY. Yeah, for a rookie to come in and do that...at MLB or SS, not DE/DT/CB, you have to have good coaching. Again, Cleveland fans are pure idiots if they don't realize immediately that Pettine is the real thing. Of course, I guess we should spot them a few months, perhaps through OTAs, to get acclimated to actually having the real thing around their franchise, since it's been so long since Schottenheimer. The first day Pettine walks through that door, he has more cred than the FO by a longshot. As soon as the fans realize this? The FO will be running scard of Pettine, and, given their behavior thus far? That sounds about right to me. I wouldn't mind Wade being DC. And, the Bills who have history with Whitey are all either dead, or out of football. Ralph is the closest to the NFL. Yeah and exactly none of that matters. I'd still want the conditions I put in place. I'm not about to have my good work/name disparaged by the bad behavior of the 2 guys in their FO that their fans consistently refer to as "stooges". So, it works like this: Add 1 guaranteed year for every 2 draft picks you trade away, and so on.

They are high, stupid, insane, take your pick. Pettine is the prototypical NFL head coach. Good motivator, good teacher, more respected than feared, but...you do not get on his bad side. I would hire Pettine 1000 out of 1000 times before I'd hire Josh McDaniels, or any of the rest of the guys they've looked at. Pettine is a better coach than all of them and the Browns getting him does real damage to us that we can't readily fix. Browns fans are getting a much better choice than their franchise deserves, given the ineptitude of their FO.

I think I'd start with: "You will not fire me after 1 year, like you did with the last guy, after trading away his RB, and intentionally tanking the season with every subsequent FO move." I'd also go with: "I get 1 year of worry-free coaching for every 2 draft picks you trade away." (This way, when they do whatever the hell they do to get Manziel, and follow the same ruinous course as the Redskins, Pettine is insured against the results of their stupidity.) I think I'd also do: "I get 1 year of worry-free coaching for every year my defense is in the top 10, but my offense is in the bottom ten. If this happens 3 years in a row, then then Pettine gets the GM job, or gets to hire a new GM." You have to do something about Cleveland's drafting. It's far worse than ours, especially since Buddy/Whaley arrived. If I was Pettine, I'd demand final say on every single draft pick for the first 2 years....or something like that. We know Pettine, he will start yelling at those Cleveland FO people, and they will cower.

What? Looks like Josh McDaniels is back in the mix? http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=28271&page=5&do=findComment&comment=381568 Looks to be coming from the TBD of the Browns. (Well, the J.V. TBD of the Browns)

I think it's beyond clear that the Pettine's goal was a head coach's job asap. Why else would he leave the Jets for exactly the same job? The goal was to get out from under Rex, and prove what he could do with a team he didn't select. The record-setting sacks, picks, etc....shows all of this. If we had an average offense this past year in terms of points scored, we would have easily been in the playoffs. I believe his plan was to stay here for 2 years, and then get a head coach job. All that's happened is: things have happened faster than expected, he did a bettter job with our defnse than expected, and the Browns sucked more than expected. That last part is something Pettine may want to consider: he's not going to fix a bad organization all by himself. Ask Rex Ryan how well that works.

HA! In before closed. Man, this sucks, however, I am hoping we get lucky and the Cleveland media have screwed up. I too remember the Chip Kelly thing. I wonder if the Browns use that as a tactic, to try and force the coach into signing, since, he's already "signed"? Meaning, if something goes wrong, then the coach must have done something "wrong".

This is just hilariously ironic. What's different between this rundown, and any other Pats bad behavior over the years? It's always something with these guys. They've never been "gracious". It's hilarious that, of all words, "graciousness"? They are the sorest winners and losers in the world. Brady cries to the refs more than any QB I've ever seen, and I watched many a Dan Marino Dolphins game live. I used to think he was the biggest whiner of all time, and with good cause: Shula on the officiating committee. No way. Brady is far and away worse.

This thread sucks, but I can't let this one go by. This is wrong. I work with Orthodox Jews and have known many for 10+ years now. They seem to feel a need to tell me stuff, and I listen. From what I've heard: they believe that Jesus was an Orthodox Rabbi, and a model one at that. They believe that he may very well have been visited by God/angels. However they believe his disciples committed a massive fraud: they bastardized his teachings and his life for their own personal gain. And, they threw the Jews under the bus in doing so, by blaming them for Christ's death, when it was obvious the Romans were going to kill him anyway. The Jews say: The Romans just wanted to attach false propriety to a summary execution, and the apostles needed a vehicle to convert people. What better than "Christ Killer"? So, the apostles went along with the Roman propaganda, because it also has the side benefit of absolving Romans from wrongdoing(agan, conversion-friendly). Thus, the Jews get the short end of the stick....and in the longest of runs? The Pope lives in Rome. I could of course poke many a hole in this logic, and many here can too, such as why would somebody do all this when it only ends with signing up to be executed, like most of the apostles were...but...I don't because "the client is always right, at lunch, talking about things that have no bearing on my project".

This is the key. Even the lowest of the low understand lies and excuses. It may not be enough to get them to vote the other way, but, it may be enough to get them to stay home. This demoralization factor is more than enough to lose an election. Most Americans are decent people, and they won't be associated with indecency by voting for it. Of course most people don't vote on a single issue. However, if you aren't that interested to begin with, an issue like this can cause you stay home. I wonder: is this enough to get Warren/Cuomo nominated instead of Hillary?

Oh I understand. More than you know. Thusfar, I can pretty much prove that government involvement...has basically FUBARed the heath care process. That's how I look at things(properly) in health care. I look at process, not patients. Patients are a useless standard, due to the obvious fact that every patient is different. In terms of process? I can point to multiple areas where the government in fact hurts quality as well as performance(no those words are not the same). In fact, I can demonstrate causation in amount of damaged process via amount of recent government douchebaggery. And, there are entire sections of process that are completely useless. They don't serve any purpose for the patient or the provider. Instead, they are a means to fill out a form. No one has been able to prove that these forms help anyone with anything, that they wouldn't be doing on their own. They are merely the "make work" which gives the government employee something to do, and, has the added benefit of being the source of their authority. As far as Rs go? You're probably right. However, you never know.

You know better than this. Or at least you should. Yes, let's take some random price for a hip replacement that we got from...wherever, and pretend that = the universal price for said procedure. Hey, I know, let me pick a random price from....oh, I don't know....how about Medicare's? http://www.cms.gov/apps/physician-fee-schedule/search/search-results.aspx?Y=0&T=0&HT=0&CT=3&H1=27130&M=5 Hmmm....total hip arthoplasty for the measily sum of $1,500-1,900. (For the uninitiated, thats a HCPCS code of 27130, with ALL modifiers.) How can this be? I thought all hip replacements cost $41k? Idiocy. Birdog, I could end this post right here, and you'd be done. However, we both know I'm not going to, and we both know why. You deserve a bigger beating, because you are lying to posters here, by trading on your supposed expertise. Now, I wonder. Why is Medicare only paying a fraction of what the supposed, according to your own link, price is for a hip arthoplasty? Couldn't be because Medicare, like all government insurance, "controls" cost...by simply not paying the full bill? And, what do you know? I'm not the only person whose idenitifed this reality: http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0883-5403/PIIS0883540311005559.pdf Yes, the "perception" is that hip arthoplasty costs $14k....not $41k. Now, I wonder what leftist D-bag meme-maker has to say about all of this? And, I wonder how many orthos, going forward with Obamacare, are going to be willing to do ALL their procedures for slave wages, instead of balancing out their Medicare people agains their private insurance people...like they do today. The more healthcare stuff I do, the more I see that same thing: everybody balances out their "government work", which doesn't even cover their costs, with "private" work, and, whenever they run into a problem? They just charge the "private" more. (Um, if that's not wealth redistrubution...what is?) After decades of this....we wonder why "health care costs" keep going up? No. Unless you are an umitigated moron, you KNOW why "health care costs" are going up = the supposedly "well managed" government health care...is nothing more than a codified system for being a deadbeat. Hint: you control costs by managing process. That means: getting better at what you do. You do not "control cost" by simply refusing to pay your bills. I have yet to meet a single government surveyor who deals in "getting better at what you do". Rather, all I see is: Find us a way to not pay. This is what government health care is and does: Find a way not to pay.

Why do I have the feeling that Judge Janine could make more than a few PPPers squeal like pigs, or whatever else suits her?

No I don't think so. Honestly. (if there is such a thing for OCinBuffalo on PPP) For real, I think there's a difference between: "we're going to spin this thing our way, because that's what competent political people have been doing since Cicero". And: "F it, I'm just going go out and tell them whatever, it's not like it matters anyway. Why put any real effort into it = "I got this" . And, when they call me on this set of lies? I'm going to go out and tell even bigger lies, and character assassinate everyone who dares question my lies." It's a choice. The first is about competence, the second is reckless abandon driven by extreme arrogance. It's almost like they hold everyone in contempt, which is just sad. I don't think all liberals are prepared, or even comfortable with the second choice....but clearly: many of them are. EDIT: I think this is bad behavior, that's cost the left their credibility. But, I think it's also correctable behavior. They don't have to choose the 2nd way, they could choose the 1st, and at least keeping the appearances of integrity.

More confirmation that the left has accepted lying, and lies, as OK. Again, not lying in terms of normal political discourse. No. Lying in terms of: "I'm going to lie, and not care if I get caught. I'm not even going to try".

I don't know about this: it seems to me that Obamacare, the concept, has never been popular(underscored by Scott Brown being elected). For a time, the "who is better at handling health care" numbers favored Ds. Is that what you're talking about? Well, it doesn't matter now. In fact, those #s are now lower than they have been since HillaryCare. People trust Rs more on health care now, and I haven't seen anything new that says this isn't true. Of course, let's not forget..."they are going to love it". Someday. Sometime. Somewhere. For some reason. Where, when, and why? We never get the answer to those questions. But, we are supposed to accept the premise. Once again, it's just a lie. And, it's a lie that they are far too willing to "believe" and then parrot.