Search Results for 'XO'

[redblack]

.. when are you going to get a tad alarmed that we are crossing the lines of absolute state control?

LOL. i was alarmed before being alarmed was cool. like during the nixon administration.

seriously. after 9/11, liberal commenters all over the intertoobz became incensed when the bush administration wiped its butt with the fourth amendment.

what was the reaction from conservative commenters?

“why should i be alarmed? i’m not a terrorist and i don’t have anything to hide.”

just goes to show you that when republicans are in power, government is good and our country is a shining beacon of freedom. but the second a liberal or a democrat is elected, it’s fight club.

actually, though, the surveillance crap is going to be turned into marketing tools. just you wait.

[kootchman]

How come when oil and gas prices rise to exorbitant levels… it’s the fault of “Big Oil”? When insurance costs soar it’s the fault of “Big Medicine”? But… when college educations soars, exceeds the rate of inflation or healthcare costs…. it’s “our” fault? Not, “Big Education” ?

[jamminj]

VAWA passes senate.

bill passed 68-31 – with every nay vote coming from a Republican man. The five female GOP senators voted for the re-authorization.

along with republicans fight against access to contraception

Rush Limbaugh’s misogynistic rants against Sandra Fluke

Republican amendment to allow employers to deny women contraception for any moral reason

Herman Cain’s suggestion that women have an inferior understanding of policy

Republican governors’ support for mandating medically unnecessary ultrasounds for women seeking abortions

Mitt Romney’s silence on the Lilly Ledbetter Act

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s repeal of that state’s equal pay laws

and arguing the women’s ability to ably serve in the military

among others…

yeah, nothing against women here.

http://youtu.be/_qLAqXOsrtA

[Sonoma]

You might also want to call Bird & Exotic Clinic, which is in Ballard. Yes, they do handle chickens, as well as other feathered friends and other critters. Not inexpensive, but if all else fails. Phone: (206) 783-4538

[justcuz]

If you’re going to imbibe, can I (highly!) recommend a Tabby Tonic? Yummmmm. It’s a special drink just for tomorrow’s event, created by the talented mixologists at Rocksport. Very tasty & refreshing – and proceeds will be donated to the cats!

[redblack]

The dogma of progressive taxation has failed. 16 trillion in deficits proves it.

it only failed when reagan stopped making it progressive and tried to flatten it, thereby taking away government revenue, thereby running up deficits and short-changing the social security trust fund, thereby accruing $4 trillion in debt in less than 8 years.

why do we keep going in circles, kootch? you have admitted before that the government’s share of GDP should be bigger. the only way that number increases is if the government has more revenue.

cutting the budget does nothing to increase the government’s share of GDP.

and still not one of you can tell me specifically what you’re going to cut to not only balance the budget but start paying principal on the debt. like i said, we’re talking a reduction of over 33% of the 2012 federal budget. even then it will take over 30 years to pay it down.

well, i can’t say i’m surprised. i guess i have to do my job and yours, too, huh?

i’d start with giveaways to private military and intelligence contractors in iraq and afghanistan – and wherever else they’re “working.” they can find their own way home. these contracts are matters of national security, so taxpayers can’t know what their total cost is.

i say pull the plug and see what happens.

how about unnecessary military hardware that the pentagon doesn’t ask for, but some lobbyist/bean counter insists that our military needs? so congress signs on to build a new fighter jet that has assembly lines in all 50 states, everyone gets a little kickback, and mcdonnell douglas gets some taxpayer pork.

want to cut the department of education and local school budgets? me, too! let’s start with the standardized testing industry and juicy government contracts. teachers spend time and money getting education degrees and learning subjects that they teach your kids, right? so why can’t they write their own tests? it’s what they were educated to do.

how about health and human services? wow! me, too! let’s cut private contracts handed out to big pharma and GE.

the post office – even though the only time they’re affected by the federal budget is when they run deficits? right on! me, too! let’s get them out of the contract that they have with fedex that fleeces the taxpayer by making fedex carry postal mail on fedex planes at exorbitant rates.

and let’s get postal workers out of that contract that makes them pre-fund their pension plan to 75 years from now.

we could also allow them to raise the rate for postage a little more flexibly and keep them out of deficit.

then there are the tax giveaways to big oil, big banks, and other bigness. and tax avoidance and evasion by – well, what do you know? – the top 1%.

JV said:

On the other hand, I’d trust somebody who built a successful business and became rich, or invented something useful and is now a millionaire.

i wouldn’t. because one of the next things that person is gonna do is get into politics.

just look at joe mallahan.

[JoB]

i am reminded of a story i heard recently..

i heard that someone’s car had been firebombed.

imagine my surprise when i pulled into the lot when i expected to see a burned out hulk and found some minor singeing on a door.

had someone tried to light a fire under that car?

yes.

had it been firebombed?

no

is it possible that Zimmerman’s head was bumped on the ground and that it bled?

yes.

head’s bleed .. generally at less insult than other parts of the body

but there is a huge leap between a bumped head and a bashed head…

and no indication whether he got that bump from an altercation or from stumbling backward.

does this photo add to the mystery?

yes.

does it exonerate Zimmerman?

maybe

but i don’t think so.

where is the other evidence of a fight to the death?

[JoB]

skketer

i was too tired last night to do any dipping for a better fact filled article for you.. so i pulled this one this morning.

I am sure there are better articles.. but this one is full of tables and analysis… even if it was the the first article on my search of .. Bush tax cut how did it work? …

http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/permalink/chas-89lpz9

it’s not light reading bu the bottom line adds up to billions :(

and that was before the proverbial s..t hit the fan cutting the middle class contribution to our tax revenue. this analysis covers only the first year of the great recession…

current conservative figures double the number of Americans now living in poverty.

take time to click on the pdf for the wage analysis.. it’s sobering.

“The tax cuts did not spur investment. Job growth in the George W. Bush years was one-seventh that of the Clinton years. Nixon and Ford did better than Bush on jobs. Wages fell during the last administration. Average incomes fell. The number of Americans in poverty, as officially measured, hit a 16-year high last year of 43.6 million, though a National Academy of Sciences study says that the real poverty figure is closer to 51 million. Food banks are swamped. Foreclosure signs are everywhere. Americans and their governments are drowning in debt. And at the nexus of tax and healthcare, Republican ideas perpetuate a cruel and immoral system that rations healthcare — while consuming every sixth dollar in the economy and making businesses, especially small businesses, less efficient and less profitable.

This is economic madness. It is policy divorced from empirical evidence. It is insanity because the policies are illusory and delusional. The evidence is in, and it shows beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts failed to achieve the promised goals. “

[kootchman]

Jan… I don’t know what branch of the military you were in.. or what ya did.. but in the Oval Office is the Commander in Chief… he can bring in his generals, state department and say… “get em out”… see how Nixon did that in Nam”? If you were not sleeping in boot camp… when they reviewed the chain of command… it became his war the day he was inaugerated… to expand (which he did) to scale back, or to stop. Gitmo is his… to close or keep open. That’s the way it works. If you leave a man for abusing you, and the second does the same thing… it’s not the first mans fault the second one is doing it too.. now is it? It may have started in 2001… but it could have ended one bright January day in 2009. That would make it Obama’s war… in fact he has spend far more in Afghanistan than Bush. And you wonder why he is called the Messiah?…. yes, if Romney continues the war… it’s his baby. As soon as he takes office and Hope and Change returns to Chicago.

[kootchman]

Overstepping the constitutional is now reaching delusion. The Supreme Court has never weighed in pending congressional legislation before it has passed. It challenges nothing until there is a petitioner, in the case of Obamacare the majority of states have filed suit.. It’s job is singular. Is the law constitutional? A president berating the highest court in the land and accusing them of judicial activism if they overturn Obamacare? He better get his notes out from college days.

Man oh man! This is unprecedented. The 5th Circuit is on record … read this my liberal friends. This prez is so Nixonian it’s scary. Will they even recognize the constitution? The 5th Circuit is about to find out… imagine.. taking the DOJ down a peg..bout time. Of course the court is not elected, exactly as the founders wanted it.. Yoo hoo .. President Obama .. this is what comes out of Harvard these days? Thanks for the ammo Barry. No wonder DOJ wants no voter ID to accompany registration.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/04/03/dojs-homework-assignment-tell-fifth-circuit-whether-it-supports-judicial-review/?mod=google_news_blog

[kootchman]

I am not on the donor list. When doctors do the surgery for free, the hospital does it for free, when the transplant industry does it all for free… I might consider it. Until then… i am withholding the supply until the demand rises and my liver has a market value. Everyone else profits… I am holding out. GE tax returns were 87,000 pages long. That is 87,000 pages of congressional meddling. It paid off. Meanwhile, UPS paid an effective tax rate of over 34%…. and their largest global competitor in international shipping paid the German Government 24%. The tax code is picking the winners and the losers. Exxon/Mobil is getting the same manufacturing deductions that Starbucks gets for bagging and roasting coffee. Yet, Obama wants to pick on Big Oil… why is that. Lower the corporate rate to 25% and have GE send 20 page document in. Until you lower the tax rates, eliminate the carve outs… the bullshit goes on forever and ever. Lobbying works, presidential campaign donors get their carve outs, as do congress and local and state governments…. a two tier system and a huge bon fire on the National Mall of the current tax code will do every conservative just fine. Keep government spending to less than 18% of GDP and revenues at appx 20% and we are solvent. GE isn’t dishonest… they followed the tax code.

[jamminj]

“Obama is asking for less from big business than Reagan did..”

under Obama, the wealthiest pay less than Reagan, Nixon, or Eisenhower.

Top rates under Reagan, 50%. Obama wants to roll them back from 35% to 39.6%. As an aside, very few pays the maximum rate, the US effective corporate tax rate is one of the lowest in the world.

http://truth-out.org/sites/default/files/co022212.jpg

[waterworld]

Dyn99 and Jamminj: First, back to post 32, regarding SS and medicare: If merely tying benefits to inflation rather than wage growth will solve the problem, then I could probably agree with your approach on that. Frankly, I didn’t know that would suffice. Also, I might need reassurance that adjusting payments according to inflation will protect the people who need SS the most.

On Medicare, I think the problem with option 1 is that a direct subsidy may prove insufficient for a large percentage of people to get or keep decent coverage. If so, I would not agree with that approach. I prefer the idea behind option 2, adjusting contributions or premiums according to income. My concern with the opt-out provision, as with opt-out options in other proposals, is that it may leave us with an insufficient contribution base to cover the cost of the program. If I can be convinced that allowing people to opt-out and buy private insurance will not ruin the government plan that everyone else has, then I probably don’t object.

It may be that my underlying aim for financing these programs is different from some people’s. I am not uncomfortable with deploying benefit programs in which an individual’s contribution during employment far exceeds the benefits received in retirement. Suppose, for example, that SS or Medicare or both, were structured in a way that required me to contribute a share of my income during my years of employment, and yet restricted or eliminated my benefits in retirement because I don’t financially need it. I am not offended by that and I don’t see it as unfair. Nor do I think I would choose to structure my finances to maximize my draw from SS or Medicare, as opposed having sufficient wealth to pay my own way. There’s two reasons for that: (1) Those of us who make significantly more money than others are already subsidizing in various ways programs that assist those who make less and I think that’s the way it should be. And (2) I tend to believe that whatever I could purchase for myself in retirement, such as private health insurance, will likely provide better coverage and services than the government-sponsored program. (I could be totally wrong about that, but that’s my suspicion.)

Whew — that was too long! As for taxation, your post 33, dyn, I probably agree with much of what you are suggesting. I am not sure about the AMT modification, my concern there being the difference between gross and net income at the $200,000 level. For someone who is self-employed, not an S-corp, your approach could deliver a lethal blow to a sole-proprietor who suffered significant losses in a single year, or so it seems to me. You’ll tell me if I am missing something, I trust. I just wouldn’t want to see the AMT trotted out in a way that crushes high-earners who have big, legitimate, deductions to their gross.

JJ, your post 36: I agree there are big problems with corporate taxation. If corporations like Exxon are getting away with paying essentially nothing in taxes and benefiting from defacto subsidies from the U.S., there’s something very wrong going on. (Little wonder there’s been a dividend every quarter since 1882!) I understand the logic of the argument that excessive corporate taxation hurts the job market and the economy — but we are light-years away from that problem with the bigger companies. I think it would make sense to lower the tax rate and eliminate many of the types of write-off and accounting adjustments that make it possible for corporate entities to have virtually no taxable income while simultaneously reporting huge profits.

Coupled with that, I would support engaging in a systematic reevaluation of federal laws and policies that either directly or functionally create subsidies for various industries, such as mining, oil extraction, cattle grazing, and many others. Some industries, such as mining in particular, have benefited enormously from policies dating to the 1870s. I am not saying that every break should be eliminated. But I don’t think the sky will fall if mining leases were priced at above 1870 levels, either. I see this as one of those areas that has historically been hyper-politicized to the enduring benefit of corporate interests, at our expense.

Sorry, I’ll shut up now.

[JoB]

JV..

I didn’t twist anything

we have a fundamental difference

you indicate that it is ok to execute an innocent person as long as you punish those who are guilty

you indicate that just because very few executed men are legally exonerated after their death that very few innocent people are executed.

You completely ignore the fact that very few people of means ever end up on death row.

You ignore the fact that means are pretty much essential to receiving a vigorous defense… both before and after execution.

You ignore the fact that DNA evidence was not present at many of the trials of those sentenced to death.

You ignore the fact that even when that evidence has been available prior to execution, many states have refused to stay the execution for due process.

and you drive home your point by saying that you don’t want murderers let loose on society

and that those who lose their lives due to executions for crimes they didn’t commit are inconsequential because you believe more prison guard lives are lost than innocent people executed.

I believe that if we execute one man who could be innocent without fully exploring the possibilities of his innocence, we have committed murder.

I don’t believe we have to execute anyone to keep society safe from them.

I believe that there are people on death row now who definately shouldn’t be there.

I believe their lives matter as much as yours.

[waterworld]

Kootch, et al.: We don’t have a de facto ban on the death penalty in this state, although I wish we did. Washington reinstated the death penalty in 1977, after the US Supreme Court decision in Gregg v. Georgia. Since then, there have been five executions here. Right now, there are, I think, eight guys on death row. Each of those cases is in some stage of post-sentence review, a process that can take several years, unless the defendant waives his right to the appeals process that is required by law.

The majority of death penalty verdicts in this state end up being reversed on appeal. I think the number right now is 21 or 22 reversals. At this rate, six of the eight men on death row should end up with sentences of life without parole instead of death. (I say “should” only because of the rate of reversals so far, which is over 80% and is obviously statistically inaccurate. I don’t know the likelihood of reversal on any of the pending cases.)

In addition, three of the five men who have been executed since the late 1970s were volunteers. Only two have litigated their cases all the way to the end and lost.

If the Attorney General wins any of the pending death penalty cases, I am confident he will seek death warrants as soon as possible. And Governor Gregoire will almost undoubtedly sign those death warrants. Both McKenna and Gregoire fundamentally support the death penalty, or, at a minimum, are not opposed to it.

Although I am firmly opposed to capital punishment, I think it is very difficult to make the case that it is unconstitutional. I would even agree that we provide defendants now with greater protection from wrongful execution than the legal systems in place at the time our nation was founded. Thankfully, that’s not the constitutional test, and our courts have long recognized that we are obligated to be very, very careful before we sentence someone to death. But the sad reality, still, is that many innocent people are convicted of crimes they didn’t commit, and many of those are sentenced to death.

Someone asked earlier for an accounting of the number of innocent people who have been executed. The Death Penalty Information Center lists nine people, and explains that it is very hard to determine that number, because no one has historically investigated claims of innocence after someone has been executed. In fact, relatives of men who have been executed are routinely denied access to DNA that they would like to have tested to determine if their loved ones were wrongly killed — even if they are doing so at their own expense. The typical argument against post-execution testing is that it would undermine the “finality” of the case, as though it could bring someone back to life.

It is the number of exonerations in the past ten or fifteen years that tells the real story. There have been over 140 exonerations so far, a large fraction of which are from a handful of states known for their readiness to kill. Many of those exonerations are due to DNA, but many are also due to the discovery of erroneous eyewitness identifications, police and judicial misconduct, and bad forensic evidence.

It would be helpful to know how many people have been wrongfully executed, but there’s little reason to doubt that it is far higher than the number of exonerations to date. Whatever the number is, it has no correlation at all with the numbers of prison guards who are murdered by prisoners, or to the numbers of murders committed by men who have been released after serving their sentences. No one could seriously argue that we should kill more innocent men to save the lives of prison staff.

How does this relate to the abortion issue you all have been discussing? Beats me, although the two are often raised at the same time, with some of us noting the hypocrisy of asserting an absolute “right to life” while supporting state-sponsored intentional killing, and others of us pointing out that a convicted murderer or rapist is not “innocent” and therefore we are entitled to kill him, whereas we are not entitled to kill the presumably innocent life growing in the womb. But who are we kidding — no one who has formed an opinion on either the death penalty or abortion has ever been swayed by either of these arguments. It hardly matters what the truth is or where the truth can be found, because in reality, people hold very different views on these issues, and it is always possible to find some underlying inconsistency. We are bundles of contradictions, even where life and death are concerned.

Moreover, it was exactly this way at the time of our nation’s founding, when the constitution was written. Abortion was legal in some colonies, illegal in others, and widely practiced in all of them. The death penalty was legal almost everywhere, but denounced by the same religions as today. No one at that time would have read the credo regarding the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as referring to either an unborn child or a convicted murderer.

[JanS]

1. from Wikipedia :The adjectival term Oriental has been used by the West to mean cultures, peoples, countries, and goods from the Orient. “Oriental” means generally “eastern”. It is a traditional designation (especially when capitalized) for anything belonging to the Orient or “East” (for Asia), and especially of its Eastern culture. It indicated the eastern direction in historical astronomy, often abbreviated “Ori.”[3] In contemporary English, Oriental usually refers to things from the parts of East Asia traditionally occupied by East Asians and most Central Asians and Southeast Asians racially categorized as “Mongoloid”. This excludes Indians, Arabs, most other West Asian peoples. Because of historical discrimination against Chinese and Japanese, in some parts of the United States, the term is considered derogatory; for example, Washington state prohibits use of the word “Oriental” in legislation and government documentation, preferring the word “Asian” instead.[4]

2.Random House’s Guide to Sensitive Language states that “Other words (e.g., Oriental, colored) are outdated or inaccurate.” It suggests the use of “Asian or more specific designation such as Pacific Islander, Chinese American, [or] Korean”.[8] Merriam-Webster describes the term as “sometimes offensive.”[9]

3.What should you do when the audience member uses an inappropriate term?

As speakers our role is to educate, not intimidate or embarrass, but this does pose a challenging situation. Because I speak on this topic, I let my workshop audiences know that we are all learners (as evidenced by the above example). I tell them that I will share “p.c.” words with them, so they can choose whether or not they will use them. Most diversity collisions are totally accidental, thus with more knowledge we can avoid errors due to ignorance. As the workshop progresses I gently inform folks of less offensive terms. The one that is misused most often is “Oriental” instead of “Asian” when referring to people. Oriental is correct when referring to food, furniture or rugs, not when referring to people.

If diversity is not your area of specialty, I suggest that you find a private moment to give feedback to the “offender.” Remember that the comment was most likely made due to lack of information, and approach him or her with the intention of helping. Most people will react with gratitude.

If we want the cycle of intolerance to stop, we need to be willing to speak up, and give feedback with compassion. Some people might think we are being too picky, but can we afford not to be, if as an association we are setting the standard for the industry?

Let your words be a bridge, not a barrier to the message of your soul, and the telling of your truth. Your audience will remember and appreciate you just that much more. (from an article by Lenora Billings-Harris called Political Correctness and Diversity in Public Speaking.

4.“The world ‘Oriental’ is not inherently negative,” said Frank H. Wu, a law professor at Howard University and the author of “Yellow: Race in America Beyond Black and White” (Basic Books, 2001). While the term oriental has a geographical meaning — eastern — words, especially in a racialized context, carry connotations beyond their literal definitions.

“It’s associated with a time period when Asians had a subordinate status,” Professor Wu said. He said that the term was associated with exoticism and with old stereotypes of geisha girls and emasculated men. “‘Oriental’ is like the word ‘negro.’ It conjures up an era.”

Only in 1952 did the federal government abolish the Asian exclusion acts, dating to the 1880s, that had prohibited many Asian immigrants, even those who immigrated legally, from full citizenship.

“For many Asian Americans, it’s not just this term: It’s about much more,” Professor Wu said. “It’s about your legitimacy to be here.”

So, no I didn’t make it up.

You may consider me a twit, but at least I’m not a jerk..

[westseamike]

While people read the book, here’s some of Brian’s pics during his time flying in Afghanistan. http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianpilot/sets/72157624975711002/with/4998456083/

We had pilots similar to Brian flying in Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos out of Thailand. Oddly it started before our involvement (oh…wait, Nixon said we were not in Laos…) in Vietnam… Here’s a book about that, http://www.amazon.com/Covert-Ops-CIAs-Secret-Laos/dp/0312963408

[redblack]

dyn99:

Going back to insurance, I have filed plenty of claims on my auto policies without issue. If you are having issues filing claims, find another insurer. Pay more for non-discount insurance. That’s what markets are here for. You have all the choice in the world.

i’ve been a customer of the same national insurance company since i got my first driver’s license. when i got married, my wife and i compared premiums and switched to my carrier. now they insure my house. no problem with rates, i can assure you. (my wife and i don’t even have a parking ticket between us.)

but in that time, i’ve paid them enough to buy a car or two. for what? here’s what:

my last claim was in 2003, when i got t-boned in the dark by a speeding driver with no lights on and who ran from the scene. it was raining. i called 911, but no cops showed up. no injuries on our part (except for my pants, of course.) i later filed a report over the phone.

did [big insurance company] take my word for it? no. investigations, adjusters, actuaries, skid mark lengths, police reports, paint forensics, blah blah blah.

they were trying to catch the other driver. why? because they don’t like to pay. and they do everything they can not to.

it’s that simple.

In terms of health insurance, you don’t have a single, national marketplace where insurers can compete across state lines currently. It’s so tightly regulated that health insurers are limited to where then can write policies.

you know, that reminds me of what has happened to our banking institutions. and you know what the big players did? they either crushed or bought the little players. they got big enough to buy lobbyists, congresspeople, and legislation. even presidents.

where’s that magic competition that’s supposed to bring us lower fees and higher interest on savings?

instead, here’s what we have: massive ad campaigns. exorbitant interest rates. excessive fees. don’t pay interest on savings for beans. buy toxic assets so they can avoid taxation. (see BoA and merrill lynch.) “now let’s get into securities!” “now let’s sell mortgages!” “now let’s compete on a global scale!” even after they crashed, burned, and were bailed out by taxpayers, they’re still doing the same things.

what makes you think deregulated insurance companies will behave any differently?

If you create a single, national marketplace, but still allow states to pass reasonable regulations (like the treble damages law which I voted for), then you would have many more players, creating efficiencies and driving down prices.

i really don’t see how a state suing a national company is going to work.

“it’s legal in montana. but not in georgia. damages are double there.”

“great! let’s have the venue shifted to montana.”

you’re creating an unenforceable legal nightmare.

You’re clearly missing where I suggested we create a refundable income tax credit to give everyone the same purchasing power to buy health insurance across the country. This means that EVERYONE would get $6000/year (for an individual) or $12000/year (for a family) to buy their own insurance. Employers needn’t be the financially responsible party for their employees health.

this is a horrible idea. you’re collecting taxes, then distributing them to the population at large, who then – by mandate – give that money directly to big insurance companies. an unnecessarily complicated and government-sponsored gift to them. no change for us.

no, thanks.

hell, i disagree with the child tax credit, and people are free to do whatever they please with that money.

or why not take your tax credit and let taxpayers give it directly to their doctors? health care is cheaper without insurance, anyway. (but it’s still effing expensive.)

why not take payroll taxes, put them in a government-run insurance pool, and cover everyone? the government would cover private medical practice with that money the same way insurance does now. it would look exactly like the system we have now, except with less paperwork. no more premiums. no more health care costs borne by employers. no more insurance, except for elective procedures.

Also, insurance companies are not necessarily for-profit. Most of the health insurance policies written in this state are written by 3 non-profits currently – Group Health, Regence, and Premera. They can compete against for-profit insurers and if the government wants to create its own insurance plan, then it can compete too, as long as it isn’t subsidized by taxpayers. The more competition the better.

currently, that’s illegal. and per ACA, the government is not allowed to “compete” until 2015 or so. and then it’s voluntary and state-by-state.

then, and only then, will you see insurance companies lower rates. because they can’t compete with a government overhead of 2 or 3%, while theirs is at 20% just to maintain healthy profits.

my prediction is that once states set up their own health insurance exchanges you’ll see people – and employers! – leaving the big insurers in droves.

In terms of tort reform, that is market manipulation in my opinion as well. There are very few reasons in my opinion that the government should limit anyone’s liability, as it encourages risks that should not otherwise be taken.

well, in my opinion, any doctor who doesn’t take an unnecessary risk simply because he might get caught and sued is violating the hippocratic oath.

[kootchman]

Nope…the very very few that use it as a therapy are exonerated. I did the research… less than 1.2 per cent is “off label” use. Buddy. Mostly it is a gender entitlement .. and does not trump 1st Amendment rights. As I said in previous posts… if it is for a clinical use…endometriosis as one example.. I think it should be covered…. BUT… I am not a Catholic so my opinion means nothing…. it’a up to the church… and if the church says no…. 1st Amendment works for me.

[redblack]

dyn99: re: post 69:

It’s always better to make the market inclined to create it’s own solutions rather than forcing “better” government solutions on everyone.

and who, pray tell, has enough influence on or authority over insurance companies – and their control of 1/6 of GDP – to “make the market inclined to create it’s own solutions?”

In terms of preventative care, if the data suggest that it does reduce costs for everyone with increased access (which I am not aware of one way or the other), then every health insurance company will pay for it without the government mandating it. Insurance companies will always act in their economic best interest, and if more preventative care makes healthier people, then insurance companies will save money.

bollocks.

insurance companies operate for one reason and one reason only: to make money. right? in other words, they want to rake in the highest monthly premiums, while denying as much coverage as they can. in even plainer terms, they hate healthy people and love unhealthy people. they can charge exorbitant premiums to people with preexisting conditions, and deny coverage as it suits them, citing preexisting conditions.

results that make customers healthier don’t matter because health care is not their product.

access to health care is their product. as such, if it costs customers more to get access to health care, then that is the product that they will sell.

plain and simple.

ACA – also known as obamacare – seeks to change that and turn our for-profit “health care system” into an institution that actually facilitates access to health care at a minimal cost to ratepayers.

now, health insurance companies loooove contraception. why? because it has a fixed price, and they don’t have to pay out much to ensure its delivery.

conversely, health insurance companies hate pregnancy. why? because, in addition to paying out for prenatal care, all kinds of things can go wrong with pregnancy that they will have to pay out to remedy to “help” the customer deliver a healthy baby.

[trickycoolj]

Borax works great for most insects. My apartment had silverfish something fierce so I put Borax powder between the baseboard and the carpet and it stops all but maybe 5 a year that come down from the ceiling, clever little buggars. If you have sugar ants, mix equal parts Borax with powdered sugar and put it where their trail goes (at my mom’s they were feasting on the crumbs under the microwave). We put the mixture in a line right under the front of the microwave and they never came back. If you dilute the Borax they take it back to the nest. If you don’t dilute the Borax it’s instant death. Some googling told me Borax dissolves the exoskeleton. Since it’s a mineral it’s a little safer than heavy pesticides for pets/kids.

[redblack]

Our tax rates are too high.

so hire a tax attorney and avoid them. or evade them altogether.

seriously. too high? for whom?

What Regan coulldn’t control was, he, like JFK before him proved lower taxes raise total government revenue,

but only when GDP is growing at a good clip and the government’s share of GDP is sufficient to sustain the budget.

instead of taking a measured approach to taxes and how they relate to revenue and spending, reagan and greenspan took a hatchet to the tax rates, presumably in some misguided attempt to reign in spending.

while not very prudent or wise policy, it did have the effect of putting large amounts of would-be tax revenue out of reach of the economy. it never trickled down. sure, there was job creation, but not enough good-paying jobs were created to replace all those that we lost, especially when you consider our free-trade policies that shipped a lot of manufacturing overseas and opened our markets to cheap foreign goods – which fickle consumers will always choose.

can you deny this? compare the average person’s wealth over the last 40 years to the wealth of the top 5 or 10% of income-earners.

cutting our costs while keeping our incomes suppressed doesn’t help the middle class enough to make a difference. in fact, it probably hurts us when you consider that wages have been flattened when adjusted for inflation.

but congress alway gets drunk,, and spend more than the revenue generated.

say you have 3 kids and a spouse who stays home to take care of the family and house. your hours – your revenue – get cut in half.

you cut spending on unnecessary items – and some things that are necessary. you tell your family, “sorry, but we can no longer afford to see a doctor; we can’t afford cable teevee; we can’t can’t afford a phone or internet. probably have to sell the car. those things are just too luxurious and they’re beyond our means.”

still not cutting it. you’re going into debt rapidly.

(here’s where you accuse the subject in question of being addicted to booze and cigarettes, right? i say it’s because he has a fleet of heavily-armed helicopters, jets, tanks, and destroyers. but whatever. our analagous subject – the american people – obviously wants health care and a tank.)

do you keep cutting, or do you raise your revenue by getting a better job? or a second job? or your spouse gets a part time job?

the analogy of government as a family is more accurate than describing government as a business, because this is what families do to every day to keep themselves as far out of the red as possible.

business can cut costs and lay people off to cut spending to stay afloat. that’s great. the owner can shrink his business and still have income.

families can’t do that, nor should they be expected to have to suffer indignity and discomfort once they have attained a certain way of life.

a good example is you, kootchman. what if you lost everything? (i know, i know. it’s unlikely and you have x, y, and z in place to protect yourself.) but, for arguments’ sake, what if you had to suffer the same fate as millions of people in america already have?

if i had to guess, i’d say you’d work twice as hard, right? why?

to raise your revenue and get back to a comfortable lifestyle.

that’s what we want as a country: to have a country where there’s plenty of work for everyone who wants it. labor shortages, as you point out, are a good thing. we want our population to be modern and truly advanced in the world. we want to be comfortable.

no one is looking for dependency. we want a government that reflects our values as a people.

for example, we, like the rest of the industrialized world, want to be able to keep ourselves and our families healthy. the free market health care and insurance markets don’t work for about a quarter of our fellow citizens, and a good number of people who have access to health care are struggling with those costs, too.

but the basic republican answer is, “tough. it’s a cruel old world. go to college, get a better job, and pay the man.”

which is great if you have access. (which government is good at providing, btw.) then there’s the fact that the work that basically keeps the wheels turning, like retail, construction, and manufacturing – and teaching! – doesn’t pay for shit these days. and those who do have good pay for those jobs are under attack for unionizing.

so until the economy gets better and everyone can play again, we want to take care of our own and not send people who are chronically unemployed out into the streets to rely on the charity of others who may or may not be struggling themselves.

and moreover, we don’t want to be broken by the free market because of things like exorbitantly high medical costs or usurious interest rates.

i keep telling you, man. government is our tool to wield as we see fit depending on the times. it’s a direct reflection of who we are.

you say that government is avaricious. i say that, at a minimum it’s just trying to keep people from dying and the country as a whole in the modern era. at most, it’s trying to live a comfortable, middle class lifestyle. it is not some malevolent outside force bent on taking all of your stuff and giving it to crackheads.

no. we want a system of institutions that help – not provide – the citizenry access to basic things like education, health care, and retirement. things that we need to be productive members of society.

the free market isn’t providing any of those things affordably or efficiently, especially during a recession. so until our free market economy starts working for everyone again, we want government to play a bigger role. and we want it to look forward to things like energy, the same way it did at the dawn and early stages of the internal combustion engine.

i don’t expect you to agree with me, but i hope you’ll at least acknowledge some universal truths in what i’ve written. but more often than not, it seems to me like you don’t have enough compassion for your fellow citizens to understand the liberal philosophy without turning it into something that’s twisted, ugly, and unrecognizable to americans. i assure you, it’s not.

[ws4ever]

xo

[kootchman]

Well look at how snarky you all get when your “religious zealotry” of liberalism gets challenged. You secular code of conduct is beyond reach. I commented twice on ultrasound, and asked a question. My comment was, intravaginal US is an outrage… but then upon further reflection.. other than abortion mills… is US a standard of care prior to a life termination procedure? Is the law correct in the medical rationale?

And you are wrong. The church does not control their members… they members choose to follow whatever their faith says. BUT…. YOU CANNOT force the church to fund what is not doctrinaire. Sounds like you may have have to go to PP or a Title X provider … or cash your paycheck and head to the pharmacy… it’s not like access is being denied… it’s just not being subsidized… war on women? No.. war on church and faith… and that is a First Amendment right. You will lose Obamacare over this…

You see the faith groups use moral persuasion, teachings, to exort their faithful. You want the cudgel of federal laws and penalties. One is voluntary and dialogue. The other is force and power. We are going to take that power away as free people are wont to do. Read the First Amendment… the fed has no business even thinking about church or faith doctrine…

See how easy it is to read?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

[redblack]

like i said before, we didn’t borrow anything. they “borrowed” it (more like stole it) and they are going to pay it back by putting the top marginal tax rates back where they belong.

twist it any way you want to, but the fact is that the deficit spending started with the exorbitant tax cuts in the ’80’s. it’s a direct relationship, and there’s nothing you can do to change that fact. it was childish, self-serving, and stupid.

as far as other nations cleaning our clocks, i’m all for isolationism and protectionism. slam the effing door, pay them back, and don’t open it again. get out of global energy exploration, resource exploitation, and quit playing world cop. right now china relies on our debt. i say pay it back and flood them with dollars. screw ’em.