(Senator Charles Schumer)
(Senator Charles Schumer)
No, and that's a great analogy--I usually use oil changes. The truth is no one needs insurance for doctor visits, they need it for the big stuff. The problem is the big stuff is where the market breaks. Also, older people need more health care, and are more likely to have a life threatening medical issue, but we have a totally different system for the old than for the young and working. Separating employers from health insurance would help, but people are naturally going to gravitate to the benefits of the insurance they use the most and not think as much about the devastating effects of a major medical problem. We also de-emphasize the very very bad stuff when we're considering risk vs reward. Our brains just aren't set up right to make good insurance choices. So, the market based solution solves some problems but it doesn't fix the issue on the expensive stuff--which tends to be the unfunded and most necessary stuff.You're wrong there. The fundamental problem is the 3rd-payer insurance model; would you use your car insurance to buy gasoline?
<single payer rant cut out>
And that doctors are getting better at their craft--that is learning how to be the insurance company to pay. Who's the rat and who's the researcher? And while the doctor plays mind ames witht eh insurance company, they use their white coats to pressure you into whatever they need to make the money. totally agree. I avoid doctors like I avoid car mechanics.At present, my wife is over-medical-izing her father and my son (and me, when I get down to the facts). The doctors routinely schedule multiple appointments and only resolve one or two questions each time; while the claim is that each change needs to be observed over a multi-week delay the reality is that they're bilking the insurance for multiple office visits. Does this substantiate Obama's claim of doctors deliberately and unnecessarily removing limbs? Of course not. The misconduct, however, is due to the system and Gov't influence on it.
That sounds like Krischan's problem. His country should resolve its own issues. If they really are taking our military protection and instead spending that money on entitlement programs (and I agree they are), then i'm essentially paying for the german's social security (or whatever they call it over there). No offense to Kris, but Let's cut them off. Unless we're getting something back that I'm missing...Our nominal allies, however, will not. Do you really think krischan would be willing to fork over another 15% in taxes? More likely the countries depending on U.S. military backing would try to do without a military instead of cutting back on entitlements, and disaster is the inevitable result.
Not mercenaries, just pay the embassy staff more to go there until you fill all the jobs. Or better yet, let's not have a giant embassy there.It's been hundreds of years since it had. The ACLU, however, is apparently empowered to change history and exterminate organizations based on the right to not be offended. Must be nice to be a communist, anti-American organization with such capability in the U.S. legal system.
Interesting, my last territory was in an area where to be anything other than catholic was to lose business. Luckily, I was able to fake it, and by claiming Italian ancestry, they did not expect me to attend their church (the poles while still catholic, go to their own churches--i hear sometimes the Masses are in Polish). I make sure I don't drive anything with a sticker on it.As long as you're a member of the Democrat Party in good standing, you have nothing to fear. I, OTOH, am afraid to put a Gadsden flag or Christian sticker on my car because it will be keyed, my tires slashed, and often reported to the police for spurious claims of illegality. Yes, I live in the "Empire State".
Speaking of stickers, why do families put those stickers that show the make up of their family unit on their cars? you know those little stick figures, mom dad kids and dog or whatever. What a terrible idea. Why would you want to share that information with the guy behind you in traffic? It seems like that would only entice Pedos and defeat the entire purpose of the tinted glass in minivans and SUVs.
funny rant about it...
Well i don't support hate crime legislation because crime is crime, and punishments be what they are (if that makes sense), but I do feel like if they're going to establish households and adopt kids and all that yadda yadda, then they get the same tax treatment and other benefits that straights get. Ideally, taxes wouldn't matter if you're married or not anyway, but there's a whole litany of other benefits that we don't always realize come along with marriage, and instead of writing a whole new law for civil unions it would be easier to get them the "M" word and let the churches decide if they are willing to marry or not. That's not the government's place.Whereas I'm of the opinion that the supposed queer rights movement is an attempt to establish yet ANOTHER protected class. Apparently we don't have enough division in America, and need to create several more.
Also interesting, when I was engaged (and living in sin), a *** friend pointed out to me that because I wasn't likely to get married in the same year (we hadn't set a date), that any money B gave me could be counted as income, so we had to get a little creative on how we split up the household bills & expenses. It wasn't the worlds most difficult thing, but simply depositing money in the mortgage account would have been easier. That never would have occurred to me, and apparently there are several other sticky situations that you wouldn't consider.
I hear that. Though I don't want to take away their tax status simply because i don't agree with their message, that flies in the face of free speech, it certainly doesn't make me happy that I was basically paying for the chickens coming home to roost speech.Interesting thing is, where "churches" such as the ones Barack, Moochelle, and Nancy Pelosi spout hateful rhetoric are ignored when your issue comes up, even more notable is the tax exempt nature of education - particularly higher education. The Ivy League organizations are filthy rich, thoroughly corrupt, and horrifically exploitative, but NOBODY ever complains about them. Yet their tax exempt status is due to their supposed role in training clergy!
Agreed, but we still do need some revenue--quite a bit if we're ever going ot get our debt under control. We should try to keep from choosing winners and loser as much as possible.Well, it <does>, but that's a matter of policy rather than honesty. Taxing capital gains is supposed to decrease the interest in saving (which is one reason why we're so screwed), whereas taxing income is supposed to decrease the interest in working. How about we just agree that taxation is a negative practice no matter what the purpose, so to desire larger Gov't, swollen bureaucracy, and reductions in personal freedom should be enough to win any socialist demanding them a bullet rather than higher public office.
Oh, and taxing work makes sense because the elasticity (or rather the inelasticity) of the demand for work means the effect of income/labor taxation won't deter many from working. Assuming there isn't some ready substitute (like welfare). Whereas consumption is more elastic so the "fair tax" besides being regressive, would also have a greater effect on the overall economy. You gotta tax something, so you might as well reduce the market warping effects the best that you can.
I do like the creativity of the fair tax--we need creative solutions and out of the box thinking.
Smote is past tense I think....typo maybe? Maybe I'm just dumb. It all makes sense when i type it.Actually, the verb is "smite", and that IS semantics. We don't need to get into theology, but you can go to the "free will" thread if you want to understand chaos' role in the situation.
LOL, I tried to think of something to say about how bad we all are, but I can't. Perhaps I have too much FAITH in humanity? ^^Yeah, it really has, and people are bad. Bad, bad, bad. It's why God came down here and tried to provide an example. In return for His loving kindness, we nailed Him to some scaffolding.
According to you, i made most of it up....Let's not start that again.You don't know history?
This explains why as we control more and more of our environment--or become more godlike--our interest in reality TV increases. I should write a paper.It's not too far away from my own belief, actually. I think of God as a Consciousness resembling our context of a supercomputer. The prescient aspect is simply because He is able to grasp all things, not because He actually makes those changes or knows "for sure" what we'll do. Plus, I suspect that's where He gets the entertainment value from our existence, kind of like His personal ant farm but where He knows each of us.
Since you've personalized that, I won't pick on your version of god other than to say that being some supreme being's any farm is depressing and I hope that you're wrong. I'd rather be a fluke. Many other religious people i talk to have a much more arrogant view of our importance to god (like that we're important to god).
In my days as a believer, I always preferred the idea that God was omniscient not because he was some mystic oracle who could "see the future" before it arrived, but because he exists outside time completely. That is to say, he knows what you'll choose to do because from his vantage point, you've already chosen.
This fits nicely in discussions about free will when people claim that God knowing what you are going to do before you do it makes you predestined to do that thing, rather than have a choice. But if God's knowledge is based on what you've already chosen to do, there's no conflict between his omniscience and your free will.
He knows all the possible choices and outcomes if he knows anything and he forces the choice by being in the audience if he exists.
Last edited by BobCox2; 26-01-2012 at 05:56.
what broke all the pictures associated with the buttons? Now I know not what I click (unless I mouse over)!