pirana

So you think people should be able to wait until they are ill or injured, and then buy insurance to pay the bills. Brilliant financial model. And you think it is expensive now. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I hope I'm not sounding naive; but you need to spell this out for me. What point did I demonstrate? Especially on this topic, for which I have intimate and very deep experience, I try to remain objective and observant. Did I apply a derogatory term with a wide brush? Are you slotting me with one party or the other for some term I used? Not looking for an argument; not yet anyway, want to know what point I demonstrated first. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

As soon as someone uses the death panel terminology anything intelligent anybody might have to say is lost in the emotionally hyperbolic arguements to follow. Decisions early on to cover everybody for everything lead to later decisions on how to pay for that - which means either fixing the price or raising taxes. Decisions early on to hold the line on costs means either fixing the price or putting limits on care. We can not sustain a system that provides everybody with all the care they want at the current pricing. There will be some combination of fixing professional fees, limits to care, and increased taxes. If docs manage to protect their pricing and we limit care - then taxes could be kept under control. If docs manage to protect their pricing and there are no limits to care - the tax bill will be outrageous. If docs concede to reasonable pricing, there is a chance of providing everyone with a reasonable level of care with a reasonable tax bill. In all of this, it does not matter who actually administers the financial plans (government insurance agencies or private insurance companies), as long as they are held to 90% loss ratios. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

It's not. The program does nothing significant to lower the outrageously high cost per person of our care delivery system; while at the same time making sure that system is extended to everybody. So the approach appears to be that because the actual care is pretty good, let's include everybody and worry later how to foot the trillion dollar price tag. Extending care to all is noble - not addressing the costs is assinine and is going to make an even worse mess. It appears to be a setup for nationalizing health care. I'm not a CT nutter, just saying the end result of the path we are on will be that. Hard to say how this will play out. If it goes national, then the docs and insurance companies, who have fought it the hardest all along, will be after the huge contracts the government will make available. The insurance companies will then all be facing mandated loss ratios, as they do in many states already. Doc and institution costs will be (as they are today) the primary determining factor of total cost of care. So when the bills come due and even more taxes are needed to keep the system running; guess where all the scrutiny will fall? I think the medical professional organizations are going to really regret not coming to the table with better solutions before this got started. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I did note this in the commentary: "The escapees include employers of many low-wage and part-time workers whose health insurance plans would otherwise be dropped...." So, this seems to be saying that if they do NOT get the waiver, then employees would lose coverage when Obamacare kicks in. If that is true, what's the problem with getting a waiver on participation? I dislike the sensationalist "escapees" angle. *idiots* It appears all that is required to get a waiver is a thinly veiled threat to drop coverage altogether. Makes a lot of sense. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

These are funny jokes, especially that one. Hard to believe we have people on here with such gentle sensitivities. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Wholeheartedly agree. What we are experiencing has been a long time in the making. The media likes the quick blame stories because they are more sensational; the ends of the political spectrum likes them because blaming others is their stock in trade. But no one administration and no one event is causing the shrinking of the buying power of the average citizen of the USA. It's really quite simple; we can isolate ourselves and suffer those consequences; or we can allow globalization to play out and deal with that pain instead. You can either have cheap (and often shitty)products by participating in a global economy that allows us to take advantage of really cheap labor elsewhere, or . . . You can put up walls, buy everything from domestic sources and suffer the limitations of everything costing much more and/or being in limited supply. You can not have both. We have embraced capitalism for it's incentives to innovate and expand - can't hardly hold that against those that have learned it so well - or even better. BTW, I'd recommend another read on it - The Future Of Capitalism by Thurow. And The Closing Of The American Mind by Bloom is quite relevant in that it explains the roles of our crisis of intellect and culture of instant gratification. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Aren't there places and people that actually want to chat with you endlessly about this, and would agree with you? It ought to be quite obvious by now that few if any here give your ideas even the slightest credibility. What makes you keep posting and reposting the same stuff? I could see a few posts in a few threads, but holy buckets! Wouldn't you enjoy it more posting on a conspiracy forum where people agree with you and you could all validate each other's beliefs? Just seems strange that you keep doing this here when most everyone thinks you're a bit crackers for doing so. So bottom line it for me; why do you keep doing this here? " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

My guess is he is just excited for the find. Cool stuff though. Wonder how close we are getting to being able to directly image such places? Last I read it was anticipated to be around 2015, maybe 2020 - and on that stuff we usually seem to get there a bit faster than projected. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

None. The thieving conspirators who planted the nanothermite stole it all when they left. Rumor is they even took all the light bulbs. (Were any intact lightbulbs found in the debris? No! Proof that it was an inside job.) I'll bet they didn't find even a hint of any good quality dark chocolates either. Proof that the prepetrators were chocoholics, and removed all the good stuff from the building before they demolished it. Then, knowing what a weeks-long diet of chocolate would do to their digestive system, decided to snatch all the TP also. We should be profiling candy loving gubmint agents with overactive bowels if we really want to get to the bottom of this thing. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

We are suffering the effects of economic globalization. The cure (if globalization is seen as a problem) is protection in the form of isloation and/or tarriffs. In removing import/export barriers for goods and services, the natural tendency is for countries with a higher standard of living to experience slower growth (or outright contraction) and those with a lower standard of living to experience faster growth (or growth for the first time). Amongst the countries with a high standard, we are far and away the largest economy, and hence we will experience the worst effects of global leveling of the economy. There is really no way around this other than putting up walls and prohibiting commerce with developing countries as they enter the global economy. It's like a payback for the richer countries raping the 3rd world of their natural resources for the last 4 centuries; which was a big part of how they got rich to begin with. They'd sail to some faraway place, plant their flag, declare the land a colony, enslave or slaughter any resistance, sail off with whatever resources they desired; then maybe pour a little salt in the wound by selling them finished goods. Underdevelopment is a process Europe, and later the USA, perfected. Payback is turning out to be a bitch, but the pain should only last a generation or 3. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

What a bizarre conclusion. Where did you get that? Continuous eating (as in never stopping) of darn near anything will lead to obesity. So we will soon have to sign a waiver at all eating establishments before sitting down to a meal? I'm now more convinced than ever that education is the key to the obesity problem; and it needs to start with a class in basic logic. Day one lesson: Calories taken in and not burned in the course of physical activity equals weight gain. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

If we are gonna go nanny state, let's do it properly. Punish, I mean incent, the actual decision makers. Put shock collars on the parents and if they do not go at least 5 days between feeding their kids one of these happy Meals-O-Goo; ZAP EM. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Out of touch is putting it very mildly. Rammed a trillion dollar health care spending spree down our throats during a major recession - and had the audacity (or the ignorance) to call it reform. Admitted in his little speech Wednesday that he was so intent on achieving his goals that he forgot about the promise to reform the way Washington worked (or failed to work?); and basically played the same bully game he promised to change. Now off spending gobs of money in further attempts at looking good. Oh yeah, this is the President of Change. Looks like the same old same old to me. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

No, it's like listening to a former Christian terrorist and gaining insight from their personal experience on what Christian terrorism is all about. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Classy. ironic Entertaining. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Aw, come on. Comedy is a very good thing; laughter is the best medicine and all of that. Strictly my opinion, but there is not much in this world that doesn't benefit from a good laugh. Or do you think we should add People That Care About What Is Happening to the politically correct list of things never to be made fun of? " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Where do you hang-out? Sounds like a rough crowd to me! Chuck Waiting for another reference to the DZ ghetto. That was jhilarious. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Everybody ought to knon that National Geographic is also in on the conspiracy. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Quotei don't feeel the need to come and disturb your discussions with irrelevant points. So I suggest you stick to the suject matter or simply go away and tru to find someone that has the time for you. But you like to shit stir, Quote Irrelevant points and shit stirring, heh? You mean like bringing in the topics of crack whores, claiming vast crimes being committed in my name, stuff like that? Yeah, everybody better stop doing that to you huh? And you accusing others of bizarre behavior? " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

You are the one assuming things. You assume they are highly engineered but can't say why you think that other than their unifrom size. I've asked for proof that they were highly engineered and alerted you to the fact that there are plenty of things in nature that are uniform in size with only natural processes as the input. So explain why you think they are highly engineered. If your only evidence is their uniform size, then you have proven nothing. Your constant straying from the topic and the manner in which you do so is very bizarre. Up to my eyeballs in guilt? On the events of 911? Responsible for the deaths that occurred? Entertained by news of crack whore actresses, . . . me? Crimes of vast proportions being carried out with my name on them? Really? Yowza. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

It's also much easier to inexpensively feed 4 than 1 on a per person basis. Then cook for 4, eat for 1, and freeze the other 3/4. Better yet, cook for 12, eat for 1, and freeze 11/12. No way is Chef-Run-For-The-Toilet cheaper. It is at least 2X the price, probably more like 3X, than making from scratch. But yes, you do need to make a decent size batch. Make a gallon, put it in pint of quart containers, pull them out of the freezer 2 or 3 times per month. Maybe we do need to teach this to all the helpless victims. seems better than throwing endless sums of money around - but that's just me. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Kids don't take or schools don't offer? Even at when it was offered, when I went to school more than 30 years ago, it simply wasn't something boys took -- ever. I went to school back then too. And yes, if it was offered I would not have taken it the first time. However, it was not offered - it was required. Everybody in 7th and 8th grade had to take 1 quarter of home ec each year. It was very simple, it was only humiliating for the homophobic crowd, and most of it was actually kinda fun. It was child's play though compared to what I learned at home. Yes, I can easily turn out a home cooked meal for less than eating at McD's. Problem is that is hardly a fair comparison; putting my highly nutritious and delicious home cooking up against the goo they serve. I do eat the stuff occasionally, and have the following observations: 1 - It tastes OK, as long as you don't eat much of it; or else the synthetic nature of the flavors starts to sink in. I think the only natural flavoring in most of the stuff is salt. 2 - For young (and tougher) digestive systems, it is tolerable. As you get older though and your system loses it's tolerance for the 6 flavors of grease they sell, things change. They might as well call the place McLaxative. 3 - Because of the methods used to make sure it always tastes the same; and to ensure it is always the same consistency; they have basically settled for the easiest texture to duplicate - GOO. Something really bugs me about meat that does not have to be chewed. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

QuoteUNIFORM and very very small, meaning they were costructed with advance technology. Try again.Quote Wrong. There are lots of things that are uniform and very small that are not the result of application of technology. There are natural processes that result in things uniform and very small. (Hint: think asteroid impact). " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

The burden of proof is on you to show that the findings are not in line with a jetliner crashing into the building. The burden is not on other people to disprove your wildly fantastic, incredible, unbelievable screwball CT's. What has been found so far is entirely reasonable and is actually what would be expected to be found from the events as they were witnessed by 1000's, or is it 10's of 1000's, of people. You have yet to provide a shred of evidence that can not be accounted for by the officially accepted description of the events. I am curious about your answer to a question posted to you earlier. How many people do you think (rough guess is good enough) were in on the plot behind the conspiracy you favor? " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley