GeorgiaDon

Don't forget to get a good night's sleep so you look fresh for your public when you do report it. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Thanks for the link Marc, it was an interesting read. There is no doubt that regulatory mandates increase the cost (premiums) of insurance, and the article does show that. What I wonder about is if mandates increase the value to the customer (benefits recieved/premium cost) more than they increase the cost. If an insurer only covers you when you are healthy, and they can kick you off the plan if you get seriously sick, premiums can be low because they get to keep the premiums they collect when you are healthy and hardly pay out anything. Sure the premiums are low, but the coverage is worthless. Similarly if the plan covers lots of flashy but useless things like homeopathy and colonotherapy and toad licking or whatever, but buried deep in the 500 page book of "explainations" that you only get to see after you have purchased the plan is a notice that mental health benefits are not covered, the plan may not be as much of a bargain as it looks at first. Unfortunately many insurance companies engaged in such practices, which is what led to the mandates in the first place. I'm not saying that all insurers would behave in such a manner if they were unregulated, but it used to be common practice. Even today you have to be an exceptionally savy consumer who has a good grasp of medical risk, which involves the probablility of incurring a disease factored by the cost of treatment, in order to effectively compare plans and shop wisely. I'm just saying there is more to value, which is protection from catastrophic expenses in the event of a serious injury/disease, than just low premiums. The paper you linked discussed only cost (premiums), it said nothing about value. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

+1 This thread has drifted so much it's now gone completely off the bridge and is upside down in Chappaquiddick bay. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Perhaps, if only those people who are legally entitled to work here could be hired, the market for labor would tighten up and employers would find they need to offer decent wages to find employees willing to work for them. The only "forcing" would be by market forces, with no need for governmental intervention. Hey, it's worth a try. Heh, how's that for a "liberal plot". Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Virtually every conservative who has posted on this topic advocates summary execution. What's up with you guys? Are you really such a bloodthirsty bunch? Is that the limit of your imagination, just kill kill kill? Is that how you would deal with a problem neighbour? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Well, thanks for that constructive suggestion. Aren't you a minister or preacher or something like that? Nice reflection of Christian values there. Is that how you spread the Word by example? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Since you are one of the few people who post here who actually experience our health care system every day, I'd really appreciate it you would comment on: 1) is there a problem with how health care is delivered or paid for in the US? 2) if there is a problem in your opinion, do you have any ideas about what to do about it? I know you're busy but I'd really like to hear your opinion. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Or a frog. _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

OK, try this. Get a bottle and put a couple of cm depth of water in it, then add some liquid detergent and swish it around to mix it but don't make too many bubbles. Then put a piece of banana in there. The banana will attract the fruit flies, and when they land on the soapy water they'll stick and drown. That will reduce numbers of flies quite a bit if you have a lot flying around, but might not be so effective if you've only got one or two. Also check around your place and get rid of any overripe fruit that could be attracting flies in from outside or allowing them to breed. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Cool. I'm going to order a brand new custom rig with a skyhook, Cypres II, and all the bells and whistles, from a well known skydiving gear shop. I thought I'd have to save for a long time to be able to pay for it, but now I know I can pay it off $20 a month! I'm a little surprised the gear shop won't mind that they have to pay thousands up front, and won't get paid back for years, but if they're cool with it so am I. Hey, with a business model like that maybe they'll go out of business and I'll never have to pay up. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

No, don't turn off the monitor! If you do that, then it'll fly up your nose and lay 10,000 eggs, which will hatch into maggots that will burrow into your brain. Trust me, I'm an entomologist. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Classy! I hope that's not your best foot you're putting forward there. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Thanks for the "heads-up", Warped. FYI, a paragraph should contain text relating to a single idea or topic. Different topics or ideas should be dealt with in different paragraphs. Complex ideas may take more than one sentence to convey. Problems of immigration, or health care, or the economy are complex. Please note the above paragraph. Best regards, Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

This is your boss. Get the fuck back to work and stop watching videos!! Good job flying. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Thanks you for the link. I'm going to print it up and keep it in my gear bag, so I can give it to people as I discover they can use it. Just a head's-up to people who do go to that site, be sure to read the plans carefully and not just go for the cheapest. I clicked on a few, and the less expensive ones have copays in the range of 30% for emergency/hospital care. A $100,000 injury, easy to do in skydiving, will still leave you with $30,000 + annual deductible (typically $3-5,000), which is easily enough to bankrupt most people. At least the doctors/hospital will get 70% of their expenses, not great but better than settling for nothing. A slightly more expensive plan will lower the copays to the point where you won't bankrupt yourself/family/friends. Even that, for an 18-25 yr old, is only about 4 skydives/month. I agree with the other sentiments you expressed also. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

When I've visited various UK cities, they seemed to me to be more ethnically diverse than any comparably sized American city I'm familiar with. Canadian cities too have become very diverse over the last couple of decades. There are lots of differences between US and European lifestyles that are more likely to account for the differences in health. Cities are less car-friendly, as the roads historically were laid out for horses, so it is more efficient to walk especially if you only have to go a few blocks. People still tend to buy food in small specialty shops (butchers, bakeries) where food is fresh, instead of prepackaged processed food from the mega-mall. People I know (in the UK and the Netherlands) will most often stop on the way home from work to pick up meat/vegies/bread, perhaps walk the remainder of the way home, and use the food right away for dinner while it is still fresh. This also discourages buying more food than you actually need. American (and Canadian) cities aren't laid out in a manner that faciltates that, instead we get in our cars and make a big shopping trip to the supermarket, buy lots of frozen/prepackaged food, then make megameals with 2-3X the amount of food that is really needed (or healthy) because that's what you have to work with. Also, although this is changing, I don't know too many Europeans who routinely work 10-16 hr workdays, but most Americans I know habitually work long hours, indeed we accept that if you don't do that you'll probably be replaced with someone who will. There is a price to be paid for spending that amount of time sitting on your butt staring at a computer monitor (for those with office jobs), or even standing around behind a counter (for those in retail). Plus, it's hard to invest an hour or more cooking a healthy meal when you don't get home from work until 8 or 10 PM, and if you do you end up eating really late and then going to bed with a full stomach, so you end up storing the calories instead of walking some of them off after the meal. Everybody dies eventually, so everybody (European or American) faces end-of-life medical costs. A while ago I heard an interview on NPR with an American cardiologist who has written a book comparing American and European end-of-life care. He was motivated by his experience of his mother's terminal illness, where he found he had to fight tooth and nail to enforce his mother's wishes (for pain management, but rejecting "heroic measures" to keep her alive). His situation was complicated by the fact that he was in Boston most of the time (working at Harvard medical school) and his mother was in California, so usually he was told about procedures after they had been done when it was too late to say "no". I think his point is worth considering: American culture, especially the prevailing medical culture, always views death as a defeat, and the automatic role of treating physicians is to prolong life irrespective of the "quality" of that life. Spending $40,000 to keep a 92-year old alive for two more weeks is a "victory", and it doesn't matter that the patient was in a coma and completely unaware of their continued existance during that time. When that 92-yr-old eventually dies, it is because medicine "failed". European popular and medical culture is more attentive to "quality of life" issues, and prolonging life by a few weeks (or perhaps months) is not the automatic default response if that means the patient has to be drugged into unconciousness in order to manage the pain, unless the patient insists on that sort of treatment. As a result (and I think this is the big difference) most Europeans die at home, in their own bed, surrounded by family and friends, and most Americans die in a hostital bed, almost invisible under a mass of tubes and oxygen masks, surrounded by strangers and, if they are very fortunate, one or two family. That, and European (and Canadian) doctors can make decisions about tests and procedures to order based on medical critia, not on "defensive medicine" driven by the need to protect themselves from ambulance-chasing lawyers. Thank you John Edwards et al! Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

If they're smoking weed the way smokers smoke cigarettes, I don't want them anywhere near a DZ. If they're going to answer a poll here, I hope their jumping days are in the past. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Hilarious! Someone has a sick (=excellent!) sense of humor. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

That does sound strange, and I can see why he would be frustrated. How can these people even get on a flight to the US? My experience with international travel is that I have to show that I have a passport, appropriate visas, etc before I can get on the plane. No airline wants the expense of taking people back, plus these days there probably wouldn't be an empty seat. No disagreement from me about that. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Nope, don't know a thing about real-world Chuck, just what online-Chuck chooses to show of himself. And that seems to be someone who isn't much concerned about facts. Your own words: "I didn't know whether it was real or not when I posted it. I didn't really care." Not much hope for an intelligent discussion when that's the attitude, which is too bad as I'd like to hear some actual debate from more of the conservative side. Lawrocket (and a couple of others on certain topics) shouldn't have to carry the whole load. Since you did now respond to my earlier question, I'll reply in turn and let's see if we can have a civil discussion, shall we? I agree we should be enforcing existing immigration laws. See. that wasn't hard, and we already agree on a major point. When it comes to "shutting down the borders", I am going to assume you mean preventing people from being able to sneak in illegally (as opposed to literally closing the borders to all types of legal crossing including tourism and legal by-the-book immigration). So you are probably talking about a border wall, and having enough border patrol agents to efficiently police the borders, am I correct? If so, I would agree that the border patrol is understaffed for the job they have to do. Again with the agreement thing! But, especially regarding a border fence, I have some questions. Firstly, if you were to build an effective fence that could really keep people from crossing, what's to keep people from going around the fence? So, even if you fenced the whole Mexican border (as that is the main route of illegal immigration), wouldn't people just take boats and land on the shore, or go to Canada and sneak in from that side? So, aren't you really talking about a fence along the entirety of both the Mexican and Canadian borders, plus every foot of both coasts from Mexico to Canada? And, to be 100% effective, that fence would have to be so high you couldn't get over it, so low (deep) you couldn't get under it, (no tunneling), and so on like the old spiritual song. How much would that fence cost? Trillions surely. Even with the limited fences being built now along the southern border, the government is having to confiscate American citizen's land to put the fence on (you can't put it in the middle of the Rio Grande, and you can't put it on the Mexican side, so you have to take land from Americans to do it). Imagine doing that up and down both coasts, and the whole Canadian border. Plus, I don't know about you but my idea of America is offended by the idea of being confronted by a 12-foot high solid steel fence instead of beaches on the coast or beautiful mountains in Gacier National Park (which is shared with Canada, it's Waterton Lakes National Park on the Canadian side). So my point is, except in some limited areas a border fence is unworkable because of expense, the need to confiscate excessive amounts of land from US citizens, and so on. Do you disagree? Is there a possible alternative to a fence, which would be equally or more effective but at less cost (not only in $$ but in those other things too)? I think people come here illegally because this is where the jobs are. If it was impossible to get work here, or government benefits of any kind, unless you had legal status (US citizen, or on an immigrant visa that allowed you to work such as a green card), people would have no incentive to come here illegally, and the ones who were here already would leave of their own choice with no need for the government to round them up and deport them. Does this make sense to you? How could that be achieved? It turns out we would only have to enforce already existing laws, no new laws would be required. In order to get a job, you have to have a valid social security number. An accurate, rapid, easy to use system for verifying social security numbers was supposed to be in place years ago, but it was never funded properly and the system that was set up is full of mistakes, so employers don't use it. These days, for a few million $$ it should be possible to set up an accurate database that could be accessed online or by toll-free phone, so any employer looking to hire someone could check their social security number in minutes, and at least find out if the number is real and is associated with the same name as the applicant is using. Existing payrolls could also be checked, to get rid of employees who are using false social security numbers, and that would get rid of lots of illegals. Businesses that neglected to check employees would be fined, and businesses that knowingly or negligently hired illegals would be fined more severely, to remove any potential profit motive to continue to use illegals. Businesses that made the effort to check, and nevertheless were fooled by people using a real social security number and the correct name (which would be identity theft),would not be subject to prosecution. Of course this might not catch all the people hanging around in front of Home Depot hoping to get some day labor job, but these people could be subject to spot checks, and anyway that job pool is too small to draw large numbers of illegals to this country. All that would be required for this to work would be 1) an accurate (including up to date, no dead people please) and easy to use database of social security information, and 2) government agents (they could be put under the Border Patrol, even), whose job would be to check businesses to make sure they were verifying social security numbers. In principle there would not even be any new burden on business, as they are supposed to check social security numbers as it is, although many do not bother. Do you think that could work? Do you agree it would be simpler and much less expensive than an all-encircling border fence? At any rate, that would be my "liberal" suggestion. I'm looking forward to your thoughtful response. And an open invitation to any and all, should that plan work or have I overlooked something significant? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

OK, so I guess you don't actually know anything about the reason for the holdup in deportation. It's not always a bad thing that people have an opportunity to appeal an immigration decision. When I and my family filed for US citizenship, USCIS messed up my son's paperwork and denied his application. I had to file an appeal, and pay a $630 fee, to get them to take a second look at his paperwork. At the appeal hearing, a different immigration officer looked at my son's paperwork for 30 seconds, said it was all in order and there was never any reason to deny his application, and scheduled him to take the citizenship oath that afternoon. However I was still out $630, we had to endure 10 months of not knowing what would happen to my son (would he be deported back to Canada?), and he missed a chance to vote in November's election which he really wanted to be able to do, all because of their mistake. Immigration officers are only human, they are underfunded and overworked, and so they make mistakes. Allowing people a chance to appeal incorrect decisions so their lives aren't ruined because an immigration officer was in a rush and isn't a "liberal plot", it's basic American fairness. IMHO If employers in certain industries were to pay a realistic wage, those jobs would be filled by Americans I'm sure. Of course our chicken would cost a bit more. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I'd be curious to know why they can't deport known illegal immigrants. Do you have any info on that? Are they awaiting trial? Have they had kids, who would be US citizens if born here? The latter gets messy as you can't legally just deport the kids, and you can't deport the parents and leave small kids without adult caregivers, which does leave immigration officers in a frustrating no-win situation. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

In another thread, a couple of days ago, I asked you a serious question, about whether you had any realistic, workable suggestion about how to reduce illegal immigration. You never bothered to respond. It's not the first time I asked you an honest question and you disappeared. However you did apparently find time to dig up this little shit-bomb, which you evidently knew was a lie from the start, so you could get a reaction from the "liberals". From this I conclude that you have no real ideas about anything of substance, just an abiding need to nurse your pathological hatred of all things "liberal". Kind of pathetic really. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I have no problem with this at all. Bumper sticker mentality. Sounds good, but how will you do it? To do it, you have to be able to tell who is illegal and who isn't. Since birth certificates are easily faked (just ask all the Obama-isn't-a-natural-born-citizen whackjobs), to do this authentic citizens would have to carry proof of citizenship that is not easily faked, such as a passport or national identity card, and be willing to produce that proof whenever anyone questioned their citizenship. Of course all hell would break loose from the political right if the government was to demand that. I can hear the Nazi comparisons already. You seem to think you can somehow know just by looking at someone if they are American (or perhaps by listening to them), but you can't, and you also can't just go around ordering people deported because you, marks2065, think they don't look American enough. In the other thread you said send illegals in the prisons home. We already do, once their sentence is complete, so I assume you meant instead of imprisoning them here. So what you are offering as a serious suggestion is that when illegal immigrants are arrested for a crime, we just kick them out of the country. That'll show 'em. And for sure their harsh experience with American justice (being sent home and all) will ensure they never try to come back. Get real. You consider refusing necessary emergency care to US citizens who have never done anything wrong, because you happen to think they might be illegal, to be "hurt feelings"? You consider deporting US citizens who have never done anything wrong, stranding them in a foreign country where they really are not citizens and have no way to come back, to be "hurt feelings"? What would you have to do to someone to cause them actual harm? And your suggestion is that there be no rule of law, just your gut feeling about who is a real American and who is not? Marks2065 is the decider, and there is no appeal. Once again, MY suggestions were based on the premise that, if there are no jobs for illegal immigrants, there will be no incentive for them to come here illegally. So: 1) Really set up a fast, efficient, and accurate system to verify social security numbers. We were supposed to have this years ago, but because of congressional foot-dragging we do not. 2) Require employers to make a good-faith effort to verify social security numbers before employing anyone. Every University I have worked for already does this, because they risk losing eligibility for federal research grants if they do not. 3) Severely fine employers who hire illegal immigrants. This of course would require that the government actually make an effort to check the employment rolls of businesses, instead of turning a blind eye as has been done in the past. What is "not committing to an actual policy" about that? Where is the "grey area for lawyers to rip it apart"? Plus, MY suggestions do not require anyone to carry proof of US citizenship, just have a valid social security card to get employment (and let's say government benefits too), which is already legally required. Could it be that YOU do not want the responsibility of making sure the people you employ are not illegal? Could it be that you want the problem fixed, but you yourself don't want to bear the smallest inconvenience but rather want someone else to take care of it for you? Could it be that you don't REALLY care about the problem, you just enjoy the opportunity to rip on the Government, especially now that Obama is in office? And I still think you owe Billvon an apology, though I'm sure hell will freeze over before that happens. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

That's a pretty shitty thing to say. It must be a pretty dark world you live in if you really believe things like that. In another thread (http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=3651402;page=7;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;) I asked you to suggest a real course of action to address a problem (illegal immigration). You gave a POS knee-jerk bumper sticker mentality answer that had obvious major problems. When I pointed them out you said I was "making excuses", so I gave some real suggestions that would actually address the problem we were discussing. You never bothered to comment on those suggestions one way or the other. It's almost as if YOU are the one who isn't interested in fixing problems, just finding things to whine about so you can bitch about Obama. I hope you can prove me wrong by offering a constructive workable solution for some of these problems once in a while. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)