Printable View
[QUOTE]Christina looks like she is saying "yes, those buck teeth really are unfortunate. Why don't you call my private dentist and see if he can't fix them?" Hilary can't hear a thing. She's guffawing (just like Bill would) grabbing her shoulder and thinking "hmm, your kinda toned for a woman of your vintage. I've never eaten penguin before."[/QUOTE]You are killing me dude. F*cking Hillarious!
Happy Mongering All.
Toymann
The issue of the "Malvinas" is really just one of internal Argentina politics. Oh, sure they have some sort of formal protest or resolution in the UN, but it's really only something that Argentinians even know about.
Here is a little on the latest "saber" rattling:
[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8518982.stm[/url]
The key quote being:
"It's more of the same and we come to expect it when Argentina's government are experiencing difficulties at home. We're a very convenient distraction."
Walleye, if you were here and could read Spanish, you would see more and more in the coming weeks. Early April is "Malvinas Day" (Translation: Falkland Islands day) Each year, they drag out the veterans and children of veterans and let them tell their tearful stories on Cronica and C5N. Culminating in getting everyone riled up in a nationalistic fervor. I think there is a parade. Then it's forgotten about for 10.5 months.
Leaked documents reveal GOP plan to use scare tactics to raise money.
news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1217
[QUOTE=Esten]Leaked documents reveal GOP plan to use scare tactics to raise money.
news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1217[/QUOTE]How can anything be leaked if it is presented to a sizable audience?
As an aside, "scare tactics" infers that a sense of fear is being inappropriately inserted into something that no one should fear. How can it be "scare tactics" if the subject is something that everyone should fear?
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]How can anything be leaked if it is presented to a sizable audience?
As an aside, "scare tactics" infers that a sense of fear is being inappropriately inserted into something that no one should fear. How can it be "scare tactics" if the subject is something that everyone should fear?[/QUOTE]I've got to agree with you there. This is just one more of the many examples of the media's pronounced left-wing bias. The writer inserted "scare tactics" for the notion that the GOP is going to address people's fears. Essentially telling that their fears are real. The leap from 'playing to people's fears' to 'scare tactics' is typical left-wing media hyperbole.
Although this article discussed it, the most telling thing is the stark absence of similar articles about the Democrats while George Bush was in office. He and Cheney were held up as 'evil incarnate' by so many in the Democratic party, yet those same tactics got a pass from the media. Indeed, if anything, the media just threw gasoline on the flames. It was the same when Reagan was in office. He was portrayed as a mentally-challenged-religious-zealot-war-monger, and the left wing media was complicit in the affair the entire way. It was only after he left office. When the left was forced to acknowledge Reagan's obvious successes. That the media finally gave the guy a modicum of credit.
Chalk this story up to 4th Branch bias. It's pure hogwash.
The only thing was that they were around words like "terrorist." We were also being taught that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
Anyhow, what should scare everyone is the slight of hand going on with health care. The talk about reconciliation is bogus.
Reconciliation is being sold to the public as some deliberative machination that will make this colossal cock-up into something wonderful. Gullible and dishonest Dems in the house who don't like the bill that the Senate passed will attempt to use this as cover but it is nothing. There is nothing to be reconciled without a bill passed by both Houses. A bill passed by both houses goes somewhere else (not back to the Senate for reconciliation)
The only way to get to reconciliation is for the House to pass the Senate bill and then reconcile it. Funny thing is, that if the House passes the Senate bill, it then goes to the President's desk where Obama will sign it and it will become law. There is absolutely no requirement that there be any reconciliation once it becomes law.
If the House passes the Senate bill, we have Obamacare, end of story.
Wild, It was leaked because it wasn't intended to be seen by the general public. The direct references to fear and childish cartoons of top Dems in a fundraising document aren't likely to impress voters. The RNC chairman was on FOX saying it was unfortunate and inappropriate. Even the reporter said it didn't look good and asked if someone would get fired.
The FOX video: GOP's Steele in damage control mode after 'Evil Empire' presentation.
rawstory.com/2010/03/steele-evil-empire-presentation/
I also thought it interesting how the RNC document apparently described some Republican donors as "ego-driven" who can be made to give money by appealing to their animosity against the Obama administration.
Esten, are you telling me the Left did not do the exact same thing in spades with Bush in the last election - didn't matter Bush was not even on the ticket - to motivate their donors casting Bush as Beelzebub reborn?
From healthcare reform, to climate change, to "green" jobs, to the reduction of dependence on foreign energy sources the Left has been nothing but one big fear factory – manufacturing one "crisis" after another to further their own ends.
Question: as an aside, how did a liberal suave man about town such as yourself get "ripped off" by one of the liberal loving chicas? It boggles the mind.
While many of us would agree the insurance companies, the pharmaceutical companies, and many others in the medical provider world are probably ripping us off, if you subtract their profits from our medical costs, we still are going broke paying for medical care.
Obamacare is not enough. It is not the cure. It's a placebo.
Republicans offer nothing, but political chicanery. A man without a suit.
What's the solution? Simple, the only way to solve this is demand destruction. You can take all the sick people and kill them (not an ideal solution if your sick) or you can change the SOP (standard operating procedure.
I have had doctors tell me they are running a test on me 'just to cover my ass', or 'why do you care, your insurance company will pay for it.'
I resent wasting my time and money just to increase the revenues of the medical establishment. We are spoiled. We think more tests; more procedures will extend our life, improve our quality of life, or lessen our pain. Not true. In many cases, it's just entertainment. Your pain will not be less, nor will you live longer. They are just more tests and procedures without any value.
Much money is spent on patients with cancer, heart disease, obesity, and diabetes. We must find more productive ways to improve the quality of life and efficacy of care for those with these afflications. Give us a better bang for our buck, not enrichment of those who offer promises but deliver snake oil. We are quick to throw money at those who offer miracles and deliver excuses. Stop it.
The medical community is rewarded on pay for services rendered. The more services rendered, the more money earned.
We need to change the rules. Pay for good outcomes. If they fix your problem, they get N dollars based upon the diagnosis. If they keep you out of the hospital with a flu, they get N. If they extend your life by a year with cancer, they get X. If it takes twenty visits or five visits, the payment is the same. Guess what. Great doctors will make a lot of money. Poor doctors will go broke, and take up work at a restaurant serving meals. We will do fewer tests, less procedures and live longer with less pain. I can hear the medical community and the politicos screaming about 'death panels'. Pendejadas. Bullshit.
Sound simple. It isn't. It will take many safeguards. Make sure the diagnosis is valid. Medical auditors to certify the books will be needed. Make sure the docs don't kill you to make more money. Get the medical boards and the AMA to pull the license of bad docs. Slow the ambulance chasers with tort reform. Capitalism is the best system if you can control the cheaters. Determine how to cheat and provide strong disincentives to doing so. We don't need Bernie Madoff running this scheme.
When I was a young man in the 60s and 70s, healthcare for me (and my elderly mother) was a small percent of my income. Not anymore. It overwhelms many today. We can't go on like this.
If you're a medical provider, you will not like my plan. You will get your lobbyist to try to defeat it. But let me tell you, you will need to find a different line of work. Believe as you will, you can't win. If medical costs keep rising, death will be the only affordable alternative. You will lose your job anyway, because your patients are dead or broke.
Mongers. I hold little hope. I ask that you don't take the sugar pill. On the next election, vote only for those who have appeared on Comedy Central. If congress is going to be a joke, let's have a few laughs.
Seriously, I hope someone has the guts to ride the third rail and solve this death spiral. I'll vote for him / her. Will you?
Respectfully,
MFN
I know the title of this thread is about Obama s presidency, but most of his decisions are the result of a generation scale political orientations.
I found Generation Zero extremely instructive about the irresponsablity chain that lead to the financial collapse. This is more than just a question of political party, it s a cultural question: the loss of common sense.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sss0irwcOX8&feature=related[/url]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbSny44Je-s&feature=related[/url]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8O_FDz7H3M&feature=related[/url]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN-hO7RVlkE&feature=related[/url]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NzLIMcyCxg&feature=related[/url]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsI41CFby1s&feature=related[/url]
It's simplistic to only look at profits. Far more important is the costs from executives enrich themselves through executive salary, bonuses, stock options, expense accounts, private jets, corner office suites, and just generally living large on the company's dime. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that as I'd be doing exactly the same thing in their situation but it's a pretty obvious cost.
Most health insurance companies really don't care about controlling costs except as a marketing line on the proposal that they make to their large corporate customers which are almost all cost+overhead contracts. There are only a few companies that are large enough to bid on corporate contracts and they are competing more on markup than base cost. Real "pooling of risks" insurance is a small part of the industry and unimportant to the big companies. The business is nothing like life, homeowners, and auto insurance.
The real problem is health care costs, not health care "insurance" costs. Read the March 15th Business Week for the cover story and the "Outside Shot" column. I think they illuminate both the real problem and one possible solution (integrated systems) Integrated systems have their own problems that he glosses over as anyone that has ever had Kaiser Permanente can attest but they have significant systemic cost savings as well.
Doppel, I don't like to see unfair attacks or demeaning tactics from any side. I'll agree Bush got his fair share, I don't support it.
BTW, you got the chicas confused. The 'liberal' chicas we were joking about in another thread were Zamara and Moira, who I had a good time with. The one who ripped me off is a different chica.
I think Esten's quote from the other thread was probably a good one.
[QUOTE=Esten]The 'liberal' chicas we were joking about in another thread were Zamara and Moira, who I had a good time with. [/QUOTE]I think that a 'conservative' chica in Bs As is one that only does cbj, no cola, no cob nor cof and believes that the government should run everything.
Walleye.
Now I disagree with you on that. You have the two confused, the liberal chicas would want what you describe. The conservative chica would be all for free market and the best price for the best goods / performance (Cola, bbbj, cim ect) and the customer comes first.
Esten,
Just joking abou the "ripoff chica" and the "liberal chicas", a little tongue in cheek - not to be confused with what chicas mean by that phrase
I don't know - I think a conservative in the old USSR, for example, would be quite against free markets and such, while a liberal there would have been for free markets. Given the Kirchner's leanings toward fascism and government-controlled everything, I think a conservative here may be against free markets as well;)