Bolas

Doesn't share her ice cream cone... Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Never wears her sexy shoes out in public. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

C'mon you know that sort of surgery will be rationed... Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

I'm all of them. Human cloning is now mostly perfected. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

The problem is that all private existing plans are not self sustaining now, as they are allowed to deny coverage and kick people out, therefore shifting the burden to the government to pay for the healthcare for those who cannot get private coverage. While I do not not agree with some of the methods used, the fact is they are self sustaining plans. You obviously understand that the end result would just be a private school making more money, not students saving money. See above; this would mean that each student could now pay $750 more, why not to cap those money? Why would a business pass its savings on the customers if it's guaranteed to sell all available space anyway? But there is no guarantee as people now have a choice of which private school or stick with public. Some privates schools may cost far more than that $750, some may price themselves right at $750 and some may try and undercut or home school and give people back some of that $$$. As long as educational standards are met, what difference does it really make as the burden on the public system is reduced? Sure, there will be some incentive to join the government plan. And I'd say insurers are to blame as well. Actually one of the reasons my insurer claimed when they raised the premium twice over two years was "Increased amount of uninsured driving up overall healthcare costs". This doesn't make sense. If one can't afford health care, how is providing them insurance they can't pay for going to lower healthcare costs? Why would they need to raise rates? Less insured people means less probability that they would have to pay for their treatment. You could see it right now - the premium rates charged by both small and large insurance companies are practically the same for the same coverage. There is also another option for private insurers - to provide better service, which will be more expensive, or they could provide cheaper service because they have more control about the costs (like Kaizer). Again, some people choose USPS, and some chose UPS, and last time I checked UPS wasn't bankrupt - even though it's obvious USPS is "stealing" their business. Less insured people means less paying in which means less to cover existing claims without dropping more people and/or raising rates. This is a completely different scenario; if you do not agree, I'd like to hear your rationale. It's different but the underlying motive is the same. Happy fluffy popular plan to try to provide something for everyone that does not make economic sense. Businesses sued and government mandated into providing and told the gov't will back them up and handle their losses. Now bulletproof, greed kicks in as short term risk goes to near 0. How do you envision it? Buy a health insurance for $100 today and resell it in a year for $200? Not health plans, health industry stock. If this passes it will skyrocket as the government will be paying for more services for more people. Health insurance companies will "pawn off" their preexisting condition people and those with large claims to the gov't while raising the rates on the existing customers as the now have less people to collect from. Health companies will merge into larger and larger conglomerates. People will make billions until the number of government insured people reaches a certain level and then the government deficit reaches a point where they have to start playing real "hardball" with what it pays for services. (procedures, prescriptions, etc.) As there is only a market for very few private hospitals and health insurance companies, most companies will be forced to comply and cut their own costs as well. This is where the rationing of care and the denial of service really starts. Health companies would go bankrupt, only they've grown so large that they gov't can't let them so they're forced to bail them out and take part ownership. If during any of this time large scale disasters or pandemics occurred... Again, we're already giving to them. It is just done in a different way - people go to ER, do not pay and the hospitals get bankrupt. Health insurance doesn't solve this issue, it merely passes the burden of paying the bill to someone else. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Sure we all give to various organizations and possibly to people as well as are "forced" through taxes to give to others, but is it really helping others or just leading towards more dependence on charity? Examples: * If a person is poor, charities can provide various assistance to survive, but of those, how many actually "turn their life around" to the point where they are no longer dependent vs. the number that need more and more assistance? * If an entire area is poor due to environmental or political issues (3rd world countries) one can use assistance to survive, but what about the underlying issues? * If the charity is for something such as finding a cure to a disease, how much less do medical companies budget for research because of the charity doing it? As the charitable contributions increase does the amount budgeted equally decrease or decrease at an accelerated rate? * If the charity is to help fund a particular thing that taxes paid to the government used to provide (ex: music in schools) how much less is budgeted and how often does that sent precedent that other "optional" groups now have to find their own funding? * Charities also tend to take the people who should be accountable and responsible "off the hook." Should we really need charities to provide for military, police, rescue, and fire dept. families for those injured or lost in the line of duty? Their respective employers should be held accountable to have enough insurance to reasonably provide such things. * Charities are often also very specific and tend to fragment their assistance. While it's nice to provide food to the homeless persons pet, wouldn't it be better overall to just provide to the homeless person money directly? Of course once homeless people learn that they get money or food for animals, won't some try and adopt or steal them, making the problem worse? Should a homeless person even have a pet if they can't even provide for themselves? Not related to dependence, but charities can be sources of fraud and mismanagement as well. I see large similarities between charity and western medicine. Both tend to generally treat only the symptoms, not cure. Charity is sort of a short term bandaid for long term problems. We're hitting a double whammy now: during this economic downturn as more are asking for assistance which means less is being provided because less are able to. Combine that with gov't and company budgets they are still taking into assumption a certain level of charity assistance and things are much worse. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

If the plan were entirely self sustaining, it would not be an issue, but it's not going to be because as with any gov't department, it doesn't have to be. At the same time, laws can be passed mandating and protecting it from it's own incompetence. For a better example, look at something local, like education. Every taxpayer contributes, whether they have children or not. If a parent decides to send their children to private schools, they still have to pay their share for the public school, even if they are not using it. This puts private schools out of the reach of many that if they did not have to pay for the public school system they decided not to use they could apply towards private schools even if if was done on a reduced scale. Ex.: Public school cost per pupil = $1000. If parents decided to use a private school, they'd get a voucher for $750. It's the same with health insurance as people who are able to barely budget and afford private insurance now, will not be able to once the tax increases to pay for it hit. Once the private insurers start losing those people they'll need to raise their rates which will cause more to drop until private health insurance is out of reach of most if not all of the middle class. We just went through and are still in the housing bubble where we saw what happened when we tried to make everyone a homeowner and how little effect all the gov't sponsored programs are doing to help the recovery. I don't have the stats but I'm guessing there are even less homeowners than before the whole thing started too. If this passes, get ready for a health insurance bubble. Hopefully some day we'll learn that giving to those who only take to try to bring them up to the level of those that contribute does nothing but bring the rest down. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Maybe she wants soup... Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

You so have to use this in the next sex thread... Easy Mac, chili, and tuna makes a disgusting looking but yummy meal.

Key word. Very few want to do that and why should they as we've shown time and time again they'll be taken care of. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Trying to make it.

Hooray.. as i said in an earlier post..."As far as I know, you'd be the first at Ritzville. Mmmmm.... beer.... " Sounds like scary shit to me.... Vint may be doing some lingerie jumps too...... i am wondering who wouldn't volunteer to fly camera for that ????

I usually fail miserably at this one. I tend to provide logical advice based on my own lifes experiences and what she's shared as well as warn of possible outcomes depending on decisions made or not made. I've gotten better at giving a "disclaimer" that by them telling I'm going to offer an opinion.

Like everything else in the world, there is no one thing or one person at fault. While I agree partially with: This one is way off: I'd say more it was partially your fault for putting up with that sort of behavior. While it's understandable why you thought you should, you didn't have to do any of that if you didn't feel it was reciprocated or appreciated. If you didn't want to argue about all of those tasks, you could just say that you were going to get a maid, gardner, chef, etc. and you two could split the costs so you'd both have more free time. If he balked, propose to split the jobs with him. Unless they break tequila glasses... Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Trying to make it.

Exactly. An "evil" corporation will keep people on their health plans as long as it is profitable. While they may deny or make extremely difficult certain care, they are going to want to keep people alive as long as they can pay and not piss them off to the point where they go elsewhere or just drop coverage altogether. It's all about keeping costs low, profits high, and stockholders investing. People may disagree with this motive, but at least behaviors are generally predictable. A government option has no such predictability as profit (at least above the table) is not a factor. No reason to keep costs low as the "stockholders" have no choice to pay or not. Also since there is no profit to be made, no monetary gains by helping all stay alive. But there might be power gains by extending the lives of certain vocal groups. People keep commenting that old people will be more likely denied care. Bullshit. The AARP has a very powerful lobby. It's the less vocal, less politically active groups that will have the most issues with coverage denials and rationed care which is ironically the group most targetted for this care. Pretty funny what happens when the government gets involved. Rewarding incompetence and even outright misanthropy gets rewarded. And you want them providing our health care? Yes. We rewarded incompetence. Again. The same thing we've been doing in the airline industry for years. Why should businesses improve or not think short term profits if they know they'll get free money to bail them out? Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Additionally you have those that may not engage in certain risky behaviors without health coverage but feel "safe" now doing them. Ex: While there are some out there that do skydive without insurance, there are others that currently don't for that very reason. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Normally he has to drop trou for that response People have been known to find the thongs quite humorous... Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Hail to the king!!!

I won't be able to make it. I'm going on vacation and sending my son off to college between now and then, so finances will be tight. Someone else will have to stand in for me! Wait a minute! Son...off to college? Think about the savings on your food bill! Not exactly. Instead of buying food, she's sending money to him to buy food beer himself. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

What kinda extra altitude would you get for THAT?? Hide this thread cause I can just imagine bolas next halloween costume...or VB's or the morning coffee guy. LOL - Bolas is over on Facebook torturing Chiquita that she needs a vanilla milkshake to soothe her sore throat... I'm everywhere... Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Sounds like a personal problem... Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

No offense... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8g2dkDh4ov4 Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

No offense, but drug induced hallucinations don't count.

No offense but that's a double negative so you and Nataly aren't invited so there is no party for the 3 of us. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.