Originally Posted by playwrite

It is obvious that you are not pet owners.

She is one, and I have certainly been one.

However, I don't notice the Rani posting pictures of her dog's ass on this forum. Nor have I ever much liked having a pet's genitalia thrust in my face. Seriously, you can make your point about the idiots in question without being so graphic.

Rani/Brian -

Let's see if we can narrow this phobia/compulsion (will figure out which later) a little further -
is it gender or anatomical?.

On a scale of 1-10, 1 being a picture of your favorite relative (in their Sunday best clothing) and 10 being the earlier picture of the cat hanging out, where do you each rate this on your prude scale -

PW, why don't you just try being polite and recognizing that you've had a reasonable request made?

Look, the Rani and I very rarely agree about anything, so if both of us are telling you it's over the top, that should tell you something.

Awesome -

http://healthpolicy.ucla.edu/pubs/Pu...aspx?pubID=382

National Health Care Reform Will Help Four Million Uninsured Adults and Children in California

This fact sheet looks at the likely implications of national health care reform efforts on health insurance coverage in California. Specifically, it examines how health insurance coverage might expand to include up to four million of California's 6.4 non-elderly adults and children who were uninsured all or part of the year in 2007.

No wonder the GOP is fighting this so hard! Any chance those 4 million would ever vote for the obstructionists? I don't think so.

While the absolute numbers in other states will be smaller, good chance on a percentage basis they're closer.

This is what makes the proposal to allow individual states to opt-out of the public option so politically attractive. While it would mean thousands in Red states getting screwed, it would put the final nails in the GOP's coffin.

Personally, I want those in the Red states to get the same benefits, but I must admit the above has appeal.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

PW, why don't you just try being polite and recognizing that you've had a reasonable request made?

Look, the Rani and I very rarely agree about anything, so if both of us are telling you it's over the top, that should tell you something.

So, less cow bells???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVbAuMr5eac

Look, Playwrite - I was about to hit the little exclamation point on that "teabaggers" image. It was gross, over the top, and not in keeping with what had been (well, OK, it WAS Glick) a rational discussion. And no, it was not "good, clean fun."

So: animal "cowbells," good; animal anus, bad. Got it! I will comply with the colony. I am Borg. (Edit - please note I have removed the offending visual and have replaced it with a piece of conceptual art that leaves it to the viewer)

However, I think there might be a possible thesis in this! Well, at least a Master's.

This is "Bad Boy"



His essence can be purchased here for only $300 -
http://www.badcompanyrodeo.com/semen%20sales.htm

Who does this (i.e. the visual) bother?

I'm trying to research this phenom. I find this fascinating, particularly since it seems (and, was even specifically noted!) to be independent of political view categories.

(P.s. Can I still post pics of Glick, or is the conceptual type also restrictted by the Borg? )

Originally Posted by playwrite

I'm trying to research this phenom. I find this fascinating, particularly since it seems (and, was even specifically noted!) to be independent of political view categories.

(P.s. Can I still post pics of Glick, or is the conceptual type also restrictted by the Borg? )

PW, I'll tell you what I think. It's gotten boring to the point of banality. This back-and-forth between you two has been going on for months, and it doesn't change. It's not really amusing to anyone else here (at least that I know of).

FWIW.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

PW, I'll tell you what I think. It's gotten boring to the point of banality. This back-and-forth between you two has been going on for months, and it doesn't change. It's not really amusing to anyone else here (at least that I know of).

FWIW.

Banality? Wow, as a writer youself, you know how much that cut's like a knife!

Okay, I'l be good -

- I promise!

Originally Posted by playwrite

So: animal "cowbells," good; animal anus, bad. Got it! I will comply with the colony. I am Borg. (Edit - please note I have removed the offending visual and have replaced it with a piece of conceptual art that leaves it to the viewer)

However, I think there might be a possible thesis in this! Well, at least a Master's.

This is "Bad Boy"



His essence can be purchased here for only $300 -
http://www.badcompanyrodeo.com/semen%20sales.htm

Who does this (i.e. the visual) bother?

I'm trying to research this phenom. I find this fascinating, particularly since it seems (and, was even specifically noted!) to be independent of political view categories.

(P.s. Can I still post pics of Glick, or is the conceptual type also restrictted by the Borg? )

As a comment on the level of discourse often seen on these forums, it's perfect.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Banality? Wow, as a writer youself, you know how much that cut's like a knife!

Okay, I'l be good -

- I promise!

Who's the little imp? Cute as a button!

Can we handle the truth?!

Has the time come (i.e., 4T) that politicians can speak to us truthfully of increased taxes and reduced benefits or do we continue the shell game, and the killing (politically) of the messenger?

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-plank/th...are-shell-game

The Obamacare Shell Game?
The latest, hottest attack on health care reform is that it's based on an accounting scam. National Review calls it "taking Obamacare off the books." The Heritage Foundation warns of the "Obamacare Shell game." What's going on here? What's going on is a perfect metaphor for how Obama and the republicans are treating fiscal policy.

More than a decade ago, Congress tried to control Medicare costs by restricting payments to doctors. But the reimbursement cut has proven unpopular. So every year, Congress appropriates more money to fill the hole and keep the doctors happy. Yet the pay cut remains on the books. So, admitting the obvious fact that the reimbursement cuts will never happen would, officially speaking, cost $247 billion over ten years.

Everybody agrees that it's a sham. Since the Democrats are trying to reform, and trim, how much Medicare spends, they planned to wipe the slate clean and just admit the obvious reality that the $247 billion is going to get spent.

Conservatives are attacking this as proof that health care reform is based on fraudulent accounting. See -- they're spending money they don't pay for! National Review calls this "offloading $247 billion in Obamacare costs onto a separate, standalone, unfinanced piece of legislation." But it's not "Obamacare costs." It's money that would get spent whether or not health reform happens. It would be fair to make this charge if Obama were using these illusury savings to cover the cost of the new spending in his health care reform, but he isn't.

So why is Obama getting attacked so bitterly over this? Because he's acknowledging it. It's the same thing that's happened to fiscal policy since he took office. The Bush administration hid the true fiscal picture with a plethora of accounting gimmicks -- keeping all war costs out of the budget, pretending the middle-class tax cuts would expire, and on and on. Obama has tried to make the budget reflect reality. Alas, reality is a bummer. (And yes, the long-term deficit is entirely the fault of policies Obama inherited.) So Obama gets attacked for a "shell game" when all he's really doing is admitting the shell game that's been going on for years.

People have made this point before, but the conservative attacks on health care reform's fiscal responsibility are beyond hypocritical. George W. Bush and the Republicans created a new health care entitlement in 2003 that was completely unfinanced. Not a dime was paid for. The Democrats have decided to completely finance every cent of health care reform, and they're taking a hundred times more flack for fiscal irresponsibility than the Republicans ever did. There's a lesson here, and "fiscal responsibility pays" isn't it.

I hope the last lline is wrong!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXoNE...eature=related

Originally Posted by playwrite

Can we handle the truth?!

Has the time come (i.e., 4T) that politicians can speak to us truthfully of increased taxes and reduced benefits or do we continue the shell game, and the killing (politically) of the messenger?

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-plank/th...are-shell-game


I hope the last lline is wrong!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXoNE...eature=related

One of my long standing disputes with the Republican Party and many libertarians is their view that 'free enterprise' solves all problems. At least for medical insurance, the answer has been clear for decades that this mantra is flawed. I may not like the plan that emerges from this Congress, but we need to do better as a nation. Not only does the country not seem to want the truth, but it is difficult to even get agreement on the existence of a problem. One of the fundamental issues is that we never had, and still do not have, anything resembling a real National Health Insurance plan.

Perhaps this should have been put in the myth-busting thread -

http://www.insure.com/articles/healt...employers.html

Q. Are employers legally required to provide their workers with health insurance?

A. No, there are no state or federal laws that require private U.S. employers to offer health insurance benefits to any employees at all. However, it is common practice, especially among larger employers, to offer health insurance benefits as a means to attract and retain workers.

Because private employers aren't required to offer health insurance, it is up to each company to decide which employees will be offered health coverage, as long as it is done equitably (for more, read our Health Insurance FAQ on deciding which employees receive benefits).

I think the more valid argument that there has been "no free enterprise" starts from the FACT that the health insurance industry is only one of two sectors (the other is professional baseball) exempt from federal anti-trust laws. I guess for some that might fall under the category of 'government dictate.'

Originally Posted by radind

One of my long standing disputes with the Republican Party and many libertarians is their view that 'free enterprise' solves all problems. At least for medical insurance, the answer has been clear for decades that this mantra is flawed. I may not like the plan that emerges from this Congress, but we need to do better as a nation. Not only does the country not seem to want the truth, but it is difficult to even get agreement on the existence of a problem. One of the fundamental issues is that we never had, and still do not have, anything resembling a real National Health Insurance plan.

Free enterprise distributes things that people want well. For example, if you desire a take out meal or a new pair of dress shoes you generally can know what your choices are at various price points easily before you decide on your final purchase.
However, when it comes to universal needs such as healthcare and public safety private markets tend to cartelize. At a minimum, a strong system of regulation needs to be in place to ensure, pun not intended, that providers of large scale public services do not use their advanteges in resources such as capital and technical knowledge to fleece the people.
Having a public option is one way to keep for profit providers honest.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Free market my ass:

...and no public option to keep them honest. My larger point precisely. Thank you. :

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Free enterprise distributes things that people want well. ...
Having a public option is one way to keep for profit providers honest.

We may be destined for a public option and I may, in time, find a way to like it, but the currently proposed public option is not the only way to develop a viable health insurance program. I am about to give up , but the federal system for health insurance could be the model to design a full-up national health insurance System. The federal system uses minimum government oversight and is implemeted with a combination of employee( citizen) alliances and a few companies( eg, Blue Cross). This concept retains both competition and sufficient employee( citizen) choice to make the system responsive.

Speaking of facts!

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/200...lth-care-bias/

The facts have a liberal health-care bias
A quick thought: now that Congress is getting close to actually passing health-care reform, the question is not so much whether to do anything, and more how to pay for whatever it is we do. As a result, sound-bites and slogans are mattering less, and CBO estimates are mattering more.

And this is pushing reform in a progressive direction.

Serious students of health care have known for a long time that the magic of the marketplace doesn’t work in health care; the United States has the most privatized health-care system in the advanced world, and also the least efficient. The pale reflection of this reality in the current discussion is that reform with a strong public option is cheaper than reform without — which means that as we get closer to really doing something, rhetoric about socialism fades out, and that $100 billion or so in projected savings starts to look awfully attractive.

It has also been clear from international evidence that universality is cheaper than leaving a few people expensively without care. That’s reflected now in the projected savings from a strong employer mandate.

The point is that reality is pushing for a more progressive reform than the Baucus bill. Truly, the facts have a liberal bias.

I know its weird, but I want to have Krugman's baby!

Originally Posted by radind

We may be destined for a public option and I may, in time, find a way to like it, but the currently proposed public option is not the only way to develop a viable health insurance program. I am about to give up , but the federal system for health insurance could be the model to design a full-up national health insurance System. The federal system uses minimum government oversight and is implemeted with a combination of employee( citizen) alliances and a few companies( eg, Blue Cross). This concept retains both competition and sufficient employee( citizen) choice to make the system responsive.

This comes close to what Sen. Wyden was trying to move in the Finance Committee. You might want to 'google around' and see how this was dealt with by all sides of the health care issue - it wasn't pretty.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Free market my ass:

Group Health Insurance Regulations State-by-State

so now you oppose state rights?

Originally Posted by playwrite

This comes close to what Sen. Wyden was trying to move in the Finance Committee. You might want to 'google around' and see how this was dealt with by all sides of the health care issue - it wasn't pretty.

Thanks.
I did catch Cong. Tom Price on CSAPN discussing this. Seems too hard to get rational ideas on table. We wil probably settle for small , partial solution.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I know its weird, but I want to have Krugman's baby!

Do either of your current health care policies cover this procedure? ™

No excuses now Mr. Reid and Blue Dogs!!!

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/21/health.care.cbo/

CBO finds Dem bill with public option reduces deficit

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A preliminary estimate from the Congressional Budget Office projects that the House Democrats' health care plan that includes a public option would cost $871 billion over 10 years, according to two Democratic sources.

CBO also found that the Democrats' bill reduces the deficit in the first 10 years.

This new CBO estimate, which aides caution is not final, is significantly less than the $1.1 trillion price tag of the original House bill that passed out of three committees this summer. More importantly, it comes under the $900 billion cap set by President Obama in his joint address to Congress last month.

CBO analyzed what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls a "more robust" public option -- one that ties reimbursement rates for doctors to current Medicare rates, plus a 5 percent increase.

At a meeting with House Democrats on Tuesday night, Pelosi did not release CBO's preliminary numbers, but told members that CBO told leaders the House bill would cost well below $900 billion. Aides say final CBO numbers could be released on Wednesday.

Okay, I'm throwing Krugman over; I want to have Nancy's baby!
Bob, I can only hope that each of our insurance policies will cover the necessary exchange of necessary parrts.
For those getting anxious, I promise not to post any pictures regarding this.

Originally Posted by The Rani

You've confused me with a Republican.

Okay, now I want to have your baby!!!

Originally Posted by The Rani

I'm having you fixed.

EEK!
Okay, I'll be good.