rhaig

in TX at least: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm#C -- Rob

so the only option is to legislate that people pay for healthcare insurance? I understand both of the previous posts. I knew those would be the responses. But I was hoping for something better. I just don't think it's right for anyone (much less the government) to force people to buy something. oh well. -- Rob

that's the part I don't really get. I understand why not forcing everyone to buy in will cause prices to go up. But I don't get why it's not practical to just cap the premiums in the government option. Don't tell private insurance companies what to charge, just cap the govt option premiums. Then the people who really need the insurance will get it, because the cost is either subsidized, or low enough they can afford it. The people who don't need it will not pay for it (except in their taxes that subsidize premiums). to put it simply, why is it more practical to force everyone to buy insurance, than it is to regulate the price of the govt option plan. -- Rob

ok... so the problem is that if only the people that need it badly will buy it, then the costs go up, so do the premiums, and then the people that need it can't buy it. Since it's a government run program, doesn't it make sense to cap the cost of the premium and subsidize it (since that's happening anyway)?? Or is it better to regulate the "free" citizens of the country through legislation that takes away our choices? -- Rob

Can someone who supports the current proposed healthcare legislation please explain why it's a good idea to legislate that everyone must buy a health insurance policy?? I'm not baiting here... really. I don't want to see a bunch of posts moaning on about how horible it is. I seriously want to know why someone thinks it's a good idea forcing everyone to buy health insurance. -- Rob

Hold the guy until cops get there. Simple really. detain a drunk. who was pissed off. sounds like a recipe for violence to me. Or get his plate number, make a couple of phone calls (or use publicdata.com) to find out who the guy is, ask him if he did it, and why, then make him an offer when he admits to it. Sounds like less emotion involved in the last option. Less likelihood of violence too. -- Rob

Except, what if they didn't have the right guy but the guy they have admits to doing it? *** Again, they didn't catch the guy while he was doing it and then detain him for the police, the VFW guy went after him a day later. Vigilantism is not a good thing and I'm surprised people here are supporting it. look. nobody got hurt. there are no charges being filed against anyone, so it appears both parties in this event are ok with the outcome. so so sorry we didn't increase the costs to the taxpayer on this one.... -- Rob

I choose not to decide -- Rob

This is where you lose me. You're quote said the only rich people are ones who got there by taking advantage of people and gaming the system. You didn't say anything specifying congress or one particular person. You said all rich people are dirty or lucked into the money. That's crap. and does make you sound bitter. Bitter? I could give a fuck about your filthy Lucre. All I care about is my Freedom. Don't make my children slaves to the governments' debt and don't force my kids into conscripted service to fight the war in Iran or any other war. I want Our Freedom back!! I've taken mine. Are you man enough to take yours? Blues, Cliff "Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy"- Henry Kissenger I'm with you on the debt, but who was drafted to go to war in the last 30 years? And which politicians are going to commit career suicide by proposing we reinstate the draft? -- Rob

Sounds like a perfect excuse for the lazy and bitter who want to punish people better off than them. Listen,Pal, The wealthy have taken over our government. Every person in congress and even the President are beholden to corporate America and AIPAC for their posts. The Congress dosen't represent us! They can't even relate to us! They have been bought and paid for by the very wealthy elite! So don't talk about the "lazy and bitter" to me. Blues, Cliff " Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy" - Henry Kissenger yeah... that reply didn't sound bitter at all... -- Rob

The way this government was set up was to function slowly. Rapid change is usually change that wasn't given enough consideration. The way our system was designed took this into account. To ask for speed is to ask for less consideration and thought into the possible outcomes. Certainly look at the patriot act! Passed in near record time. Look at the buried details. I'd think any problem that's being solved (or attempted to) by legislation can wait another 72 hours. -- Rob

honestly, I didn't know it was National Preparedness month. -- Rob

wow... a new one... I knew if I stayed up long enough I'd get a nugget to relay around the coffee pot tomorrow morning... "so heard another conspiracy theory last night... don't take a drink... this one's a doozy!" /out of popcorn -- Rob

that's what.... 3 today? 4? Off your meds again? (munching popcorn...) -- Rob

anybody want some popcorn? these threads are fun to watch. humorous too. -- Rob

to my (likely incomplete, and lacking references) knowledge, there have been 2 incidents. One was an off duty police officer, one a postman. I don't recall the specifics, and don't care to google for them at the moment. Nor do I know how many people were hurt. -- Rob

What I've seen in most responses is that "disaster" is being considered to be a large-scale event effecting large numbers of people. This is why I asked how you defined the term. I think that while those events do certainly constitute a disaster, when considering preparedness, one should start much smaller. Start by considering how a negative personal/family event might affect your life. (such as the loss of a job or family member) Then consider a larger scale event such as a neighbourhood event (power outage or minor flood). Then move on to city-wide, area wide, state wide, etc.... Most likely to affect me would be loss of job. Or it's at least the one I'm most concerned about at the moment. I'm not prepared for that one, as I'm in debt up to my eyeballs (but working out of it). with respect to that type of a disaster, I need to work myself out of debt (about 40% there) reduce my monthly expenses (cut unneeded services, grow produce at home instead of rely on the store for produce) put money in savings or other "safe" investments (Canadian banks?) and reduce my dependence on others. As far as other disaster types go, I'm preparing for the most likely type of event first. Floods are rare where I live, so that's further down the list. But high winds and power outages aren't heard of (we had 50mph forecasts during IKE last year) and I'm rotating through food/water storage (eat what you store, store what you eat) that would ride me through a small such event. Earthquakes and floods I'm not prepared for other than the food/water stashes and outdoor shelter options available through my personal camping gear and knowledge. Societal breakdown for whatever reason is not worth preparing for right now for me, because I'm not prepared for the things that are much more likely to happen to me. Prepare for the most likely disaster (for whatever scale you wish to define the term) to strike you, then move down the list improving your preparations. For some, preparations aren't required at all, as they have full faith in our government and local services (PD, FD, FEMA, Red Cross) to help them out in time of need. I don't get to tell you what you need to do (or how to do it). You decide that for yourself. -- Rob

so isn't there a great amount of overlap in preparations for many disasters? Being prepared for a tornado that might cut off water and power for a week isn't that much different from being prepared from an earthquake that cuts off water and power for a week. But you mention one of my points for me. People should prepare for what is most likely to occur. That's why people in the midwest are concerned with tornadoes. They mostly know what a wall cloud and hook echo look like, they can tell a tornado producing storm by sight (I could after 14yr living in KS). We had a water stash and a food stash in the basement. We knew we might not be able to get to it if our house was collapsed, but had neighbors with similar stashes that would share. -- Rob

Really. Why is that? Because people have limited imaginations. Whatever they "think" is the worst disaster, will be proven wrong by a bigger one; sometimes caused by something insignificant they never imagined would have caused one. Just think about how smart the people at NASA are. Think about the amazing amount of thought that goes into everything they do. Now think of; Apollo 1 Challenger Columbia so because you can't possibly prepare for the worst case scenario, don't bother to prepare for anything at all? -- Rob

it all depends on how you define disaster, and what you think you're ready for. The most likely disaster to hit anyone right now is typicaly a personal disaster on the lines of loss of your job. -- Rob

How do you define disaster? What kind of disaster do you think is the most likely to affect you? Are you prepared for whatever kind of disaster might strike you? How might you improve your situation before you're affected by such a disaster? (I'll withhold my answers for a while) -- Rob

or Australia. oh... too late... how about Manhattan? wait... bad movie... uh... dunno -- Rob

I am not taking sides on this one, the cops response was excessive, but the soldiers should have shown more respect. i'm sure he was well aware that it was ramadan, this is a sacred time for islamics and if someone came through you church service cahnting 'allah is great' you would probably be pissed off too. To be disrespecting in an country you are supposed to be working with is pretty darn stupid, not repecting ramadan in afghanistan is stupid, so the soldier was stupid. He deserved to be punished but being shot is a bit excessive. note I said nothing about the US soldier's behavior. I believe it's understood he showed poor judgement, but he did nothing wrong but to be disrespectful. He may have deserved stern words from the liaison officer, or his CO, but no punishment. And I still say that the fact that the cop is alive shows there was remarkable control (either personal restraint, or shot placement) on the part of the other soldiers backing this guy up. -- Rob

I suspect there is much we'll never know about this event. But I think it's safe to say that the cop should have exercised more control. -- Rob

wow... the cop shot a soldier for drinking water. Cop's lucky he's alive. I wonder how the american troops responded. There are many ways to "seriously wound" other than shooting. -- Rob