likearock

This neanderthal opinion deserves a bump in light of the extraordinary actions of Kim Munley at Fort Hood:

Odd how you don't mention Canada or Britain - maybe because they're going broke over healthcare? German social services isn't exactly cheap, either - some 40% of income, IIRC from my time living there. Once again, last I looked no one was proposing a universal, single payer system in the US. Even if Pelosi, Reed, and Obama did secretly want that to happen, we all know the votes aren't there and won't be in any foreseeable future. Getting back to the original point, private insurers will not all go out of business as they'd like you to believe and just a quick bit of checking shows this to be true. Private providers coexist just fine with public plans, even some that are single payer, all over the world. If you want to pick on one or two exceptions to that general rule and claim that the sky is falling, I'm sure the Aetna lobby greatly appreciates your support of their profit margins.

No, I contend that they are voting in a system that they think will result in a single payer system over time, by introducing a public option that by design will be significantly cheaper than private plans. That is their desire - to have the public option be cheaper to the consumer (not counting the taxpayer money needed to make it cheaper). Funny how in spite of all your theories, private insurers continue to thrive alongside cheaper public ones in Australia, Brazil, Germany, and Argentina, among other places. Kind of annoying the way hard facts end up trumping all of those interesting "contentions".

Let's see, the Democrats have 60 in the Senate, they have to work like hell to pass even a severely limited public option, and you contend they'll be voting in a single payer system if we don't watch out? I want some of what you're smoking. Besides, even if your "stalking horse" theory were correct, there still are a whole lot of countries out there, including some with a single payer systems, where the private insurance companies continue to do just fine. Here's the link again. Just search for the word "private" to see how many countries accommodate both public and private insurers.

Whenever I hear this argument I wonder how all those other industries manage to do just fine with a mix of government and private management. For example, public universities are also government-subsidized and relatively cheaper but no one would ever suggest they will be putting Stanford and MIT out of business. The post office may deliver most our mail but I don't see FedEx or UPS hurting because of it. We even have a mix of public and private management for our prisons. So what's with this big fear that the public option will put private companies out of business? Answer: the fear of the private companies is not that they will go out of business but simply that they'll have to scale down their exorbitant profits somewhat. But of course that doesn't look as good on a bumper sticker. To compare it to Universities is very flawed. Universities have a limited supply of their service to offer. Do you suppose that the public option will limit enrollment? I think not. . Just because you "think not" doesn't make you correct. Your analysis is flawed. Many weaker private colleges have gone bust and disappeared following the opening of a public nearby. There is a finite customer base of students. The presence of public universities pretty much ensures that only the strong private shools survive. No doubt that is why the right keeps going on about how private education is superior to public. Your argument seems to make MY point. The govt offers the service at a price that private companies cannot match, so it erodes the customer base of the private company, and of course the subsidized public univ causes some "weaker" private univ to fail. In the case of universities, the public univ ability to enroll students is limited, and there are still more students than seats in public univ. In the case of the public health care plan, I assert that Pelosi, Reed and Obama will be very happy to accomodate as many as want the service. Newsflash: the ability to accommodate as many people as possible is also limited with respect to health care. No matter how much anyone wishes, there's only a finite amount of resources. And since it's a public option sitting besides the private options, there's no reason to suspect it wouldn't play out in a similar manner to the way universities divvy up the demographic. That is, basic low-cost coverage will go the the public plan while people who are willing to pay can get more comprehensive coverage in the private sector. BTW, you do know that many countries, some of which are even single payer, already accommodate public and private health care providers. A quick look netted Australia, Argentina, and Germany, among others. Apparently, it's not as easy to put those private insurers out of business as their lobbyists would lead you to believe.

Whenever I hear this argument I wonder how all those other industries manage to do just fine with a mix of government and private management. For example, public universities are also government-subsidized and relatively cheaper but no one would ever suggest they will be putting Stanford and MIT out of business. The post office may deliver most our mail but I don't see FedEx or UPS hurting because of it. We even have a mix of public and private management for our prisons. So what's with this big fear that the public option will put private companies out of business? Answer: the fear of the private companies is not that they will go out of business but simply that they'll have to scale down their exorbitant profits somewhat. But of course that doesn't look as good on a bumper sticker. To compare it to Universities is very flawed. Universities have a limited supply of their service to offer. Do you suppose that the public option will limit enrollment? I think not. The university example was only one of three I made. Do you have an excuse for the other two as well?

Whenever I hear this argument I wonder how all those other industries manage to do just fine with a mix of government and private management. For example, public universities are also government-subsidized and relatively cheaper but no one would ever suggest they will be putting Stanford and MIT out of business. The post office may deliver most our mail but I don't see FedEx or UPS hurting because of it. We even have a mix of public and private management for our prisons. So what's with this big fear that the public option will put private companies out of business? Answer: the fear of the private companies is not that they will go out of business but simply that they'll have to scale down their exorbitant profits somewhat. But of course that doesn't look as good on a bumper sticker.

She should be able to sue her attackers and anyone who enabled those attackers through their own negligence. While the rapists in your original post were the primary cause of the act, it may very well be that the school was negligent and should bear some responsibility. It was a school-sponsored event. Both sides will have their arguments and in the end a jury will decide liability. The same should be the case with our Iraqi contractors. I'm sure that if they're unwilling to meet the requirement, another will. There's no excuse for giving out that kind of "free pass".

Hey, you can say a lot of things about the Democrats but it's the Republicans who support gang rape.

Oh, man. Why? You could have just written in Ron Paul. I don't know how it would have worked in his state, but a write-in vote for Ron Paul wouldn't count in California, because Ron Paul hadn't declared as a write-in candidate, and the vote would be completely wasted. You mean as opposed to "partially" wasted? I mean as in wouldn't even be counted, as opposed to be counted towards a candidate who did not have a chance of winning as a way to make a political statement. Yeah, I knew what you meant. I just don't happen to think those kinds of "political statements" are particularly effective. If protest votes don't affect the election, they're generally forgotten. If they do, they often fall into the "unforeseen consequences" category such as when Perot helped elect Clinton or when Nader helped elect Bush. In neither case did the recipient of the protest vote benefit and in fact both candidates were effectively marginalized as a result.

Oh, man. Why? You could have just written in Ron Paul. I don't know how it would have worked in his state, but a write-in vote for Ron Paul wouldn't count in California, because Ron Paul hadn't declared as a write-in candidate, and the vote would be completely wasted. You mean as opposed to "partially" wasted?

The government is the lender, and the company is the borrower. Mind you, nobody forced the bailed-out companies to borrow this money; they requested it when they couldn't get that level of financing elsewhere. Well, there's considerable contention over the notion that no one forced them to take TARP money. The ones that haven't paid it back - almost certainly they needed to - but the others didn't feel they have much choice at all. Nonetheless, the terms of the deal included this sort of wage control...or did Congress pass that afterwards? It was passed afterwards - Bush & Co were perfectly happy to give taxpayer money to the fat cats, they just wanted to keep it from the poor and needy. And that's the key. Regardless of any anger you might have towards the financial institutions, it is universally recognized as unfair to impose conditions after a loan is made.

That's a nice human right which will probably never pass in U.S., because a bunch of people here believes that embryo is also human. And it would be damn hard to provide the embryos with Internet access. Not at all. All you need is an injectable nano-iPhone and a wireless connection.

Senate Takes Aim At Insurance 'Monopoly' By Michael McAuliff Democrats declared war on the health insurance industry this morning, opening hearings on a bill that would strip its anti-trust exemption. “It’s something that should have been done a long time ago,” said Majority Leader Harry Reid, who argued that insurance companies have gotten so large, “they dominate entire regions of the country.” “They make more money than any business in America today,” he said. “What a sweet deal they have.” The entire insurance industry got the exemption in 1945’s McCarran-Ferguson Act on the grounds that it was not engaged in interstate commerce, and, federal anti-trust probes would interfere with state rules. Unlike other industries, insurance companies are allowed to discuss pricing, territories and other practices that would be considered collusion if not for the exemption. The hearing comes just three days after a health insurance industry trade group warned its members would raise rates even higher than the 6% a year they are expected to go up already if the Senate Finance committee bill passed yesterday becomes law. Many lawmakers and the White House saw that as a threat. Although today’s hearing had been scheduled before, lawmakers used it as a chance to fire back, arguing that ending the exemption would immediately open up competition, and curb rate-setting collusion. New York Sen. Chuck Schumer cited Justice Department statistics that found 94% of the nation’s insurance markets are “highly concentrated” and that in nearly 40 states, two firms control over half the market. “That’s not acceptable,” Schumer said, adding that the anti-trust bill should be added to health care legislation. “We need more competition.” A representative of the insurance industry argued competitors need to be able to share data because they are pricing things that have not happened, and it’s extremely difficult to predict costs and losses. The senators were skeptical, however, and pointed to testimony by Assistant Attorney General Christine Varney, who argued insurers could still share such “pro-competitive” data. She suggested strongly the Obama administration favors yanking the anti-trust exemption. “Repealing the McCarran-Ferguson Act would allow competition to have a greater role in reforming health and medical malpractice insurance markets than would otherwise be the case,” she said. The insurance industry is taking none of this lying down, and today is firing back with a tough ad in several swing states, charging that the bill passed by the Senate Finance Committee yesterday will hurt seniors. “Most people agree we need to reform health care, but is it right to ask 10 million seniors on Medicare Advantage for more than their fair share?” the spot says. “Congress has proposed more than $100 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage.” It advises people to call their senators and complain. One witness in the hearing, Robert Hunter, the Consumer Federation of America’s insurance director, noted that since the industry can collude on prices, it could simply pass along the cost of that ad to consumers.

There's your problem. A pity, it is a good plan.

Hey rock... don't be a rock! Before you accuse me of saying she was a failure, be sure to read who the hell wrote that. I was stating the fact that I can see where he might perceive that because of the bias media. Hey, chimp, read it again. I never accused you of anything, I was commenting on the person who said it.

As several others have said, your anger should be directed against those who manipulated the media rather than Lynch herself. Don't forget she was pretty badly injured during the initial assault. Maybe in your world someone with a broken arm and femur can still conduct themselves up to your standards, but most people in that kind of pain will be less than perfect. IMO, calling someone who made that kind of sacrifice for their country a failure is completely out of line.

That's pretty harsh. Yeah, she screwed up but it's not like she asked to be dragged into the side show. I don't know quade.... I can see his view point. We just lost one of our skydivers (Sgt Rob Sanchez) on October 1st in Afgan. by an IED. He fought many missions before his death and we never hear about the many soldiers and their acomplishments. I think it boils down to gender. Lynch is female and that was stimuli to the Press. End of story. So how does that translate to animosity towards Lynch, who at a minimum earned her purple heart? Say what you want about the media and the politicians but calling her a failure is disrespectful to all who serve.

How do you measure that? If the odds are even 10 to 1, I would rather these guys be in jail than carry out a real terror attack. It's not quite that simple. And the fact that it's not that simple is the reason the entrapment defense exists in the first place. And as I noted above, the reasonable counter-balance to that is the fact that entrapment is what's known as an "affirmative defense": the burden is on the defense to prove it. Nice speech, but it has nothing to do with my statement. Of course it does. Only if you make ASSumptions.

How do you measure that? If the odds are even 10 to 1, I would rather these guys be in jail than carry out a real terror attack. It's not quite that simple. And the fact that it's not that simple is the reason the entrapment defense exists in the first place. And as I noted above, the reasonable counter-balance to that is the fact that entrapment is what's known as an "affirmative defense": the burden is on the defense to prove it. Nice speech, but it has nothing to do with my statement.

How do you measure that? If the odds are even 10 to 1, I would rather these guys be in jail than carry out a real terror attack.

??? If you subsidize one insurance company (the government run one) to the tune of a trillion bucks, so they can give stuff away for free, how's that "competition"? The same way private universities compete for students against government-subsidized schools. People do a cost/benefit analysis and make their choice. It doesn't look like the private schools are all the worse for wear from that competition. Which is better $50k a year at Harvard or $5k a year at SUNY Buffalo? Seems like people appreciate having the choice of both options.

Because it is the best health care system on the planet. Whenever I hear that statement I think of this.

Because it is the best health care system on the planet. Whenever I hear that statement I think of this.

You can tell the difference?