pirana

My bet is that most of the people here are pretty civil in real life. There are actually mostly nice people in the world, if you get to know them. I doubt that a lot of discussions we as a group have in real life are much like some of the nastiness here. Problem is you don't get to know much about a person if your only interaction is a web forum. Makes it easy to be a bit snippy, and for some downright assholish. " . . . 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

Fucking idiot politicians are making a bigger mess than they are trying to fix. Guarantee issue should be a cornerstone. How the hell do you have unisnsureable people and pre-existing conditions if there is guarantee issue? Did I miss something? Have they scrapped that basic tenet? Fucking morons. We are going to get the worst of most worlds. Maybe it is good that I am out of the biz. Instead of pulling my hair out at work while this thing unfolds - I can just put on some popcorn and watch things implode. " . . . 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

Your harness is there to keep your rig on, and so you have a place to keep your handles. Avoid letting others grab your harness, and keep your hands to yourself with regards to other people's harnesses. Grippers are for gripping. Use them. I'm not a fan of grabbing chest straps either. Not sure why, but there are a couple experienced jumpers at our DZ that insist on taking the chest strap. Anybody know why some see that as better than using the grippers? I think people grabbing my chest strap is how I keep losing hook knives. I also had my finger get hung up in someone else's hook knife handle once. After the launch I could not free my hand for about 5 seconds. They're trying to go to the next point and thought I just didn't want to let go, but my knuckle had become monkey-fisted in his hook knife finger hole. He's yanking on my hand, feels like my finger is going to come off, I'm trying to get leverage to push pack and release the pressure. Small thing, could have ended badly. Use the grippers. " . . . 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've got one pumpkin left to carve. I love the puking pumpkin idea. Now I've got to go out to the compost pile and retrieve the guts. " . . . 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

Well, you ARE paying for it right now through increased premiums. Very true; be it public or private, care for those that can not afford it is going to be subsidized. Just a matter of by what mechanism - taxes or premiums. On the matter of opting out to buy private; in a perfect world where the government regulates and acts as a clearinghouse, every private plan you could imagine would be available. There is really no longer a need for employer involvement. It is a layer of bureacracy that adds no value and can be completely eliminated. Employers will fight this tooth and nail because they want to be able to dangle a carrot in front of prospective employees, but it is smoke and mirrors. It should make no difference to them whether they give you $1K per month in benefits or $1K per month to spend at the clearinghouse. What they will not say out loud is that they want to preserve their ability to use current provisions (aka loopholes) that allow them to exempt themselves from many of the mandates and levies which direct sold and small group consumers must pay. Eliminate these loopholes available to large employers, political subdivisions and other self-insured entities; and the business gets much simpler to administer. There are not many primary variables - deductible, coinsurance and copays, out-of-pocket max, and network selection. Make your selections from that matrix, identify your level of tax credits/subsidy - and you have a plan and a price. Opting out should not even be on the table. Guarantee issue and opting out should be mutually exclusive. If there is going to be a penalty - then why not just use the money to pick a plan? This really could be made very simple, well, simpler than today's mess anyway. Unfortunately, everybody is going to get some element that goes against their special interest, and some are going to fight it vigorously and selfishly to the detriment of all (aka politics as usual). " . . . 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

. . . and falling. " . . . 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

Good. The first question is, how much? As far as I know, several states (like CA) have reduced malpractice awards, and the healthcare costs there do not seem to be significantly smaller. Second question is, why would insurance company cut its premiums instead of just increasing their profits? People have been paying those premiums before, sure they can afford it, why decrease them? Third, depending on reform, it might put doctors in danger. I pointed out a recent case in Russia, where a father shot a doctor who was not able to save his daughter. I'd speculate that if the father had an option to sue, he'd rather sue - and the doctor would likely prefer to pay huge insurance premium than just being shot (which is the only actual remedy there). This is what the bill is also about, together with forcing those who can pay for insurance, to maintain it. I do suggest you read it. There are federal minimums in the bill, which look reasonable to me. With interstate exchange the states are unlikely be able to mandate specific coverages. And if you look on real individual insurance companies, you'd be down to 3 (BC, BS and Kaiser). The rest are either virtually not accepted anywhere, or do not sell individual plans. I'd be more interested to understand how are you going to prevent the following problems your solution does not address: - People with pre-existing conditions (who now get free care in ERs even if they could pay for the insurance - because they're not accepted); - People who can afford insurance, but decide not to buy it (and then go to ER and get care and do not pay for it); You only address part of problem. In a world of guarantee issue and continuous coverage - there is no such thing as pre-existing conditions. Mandated coverage can be enforced by connecting to other systems already in place - DL, SS, IRS, etc. Best way to determine term charges and any credits would be to connect it to AGI, filing status, etc. Everyone files a tax return, easy enough to go from there. Wanna live off the grid to the point of not filing a return, get your health care on a cash basis only. " . . . 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

A common misnomer. The proper term for what most people are debating is health care financing. Truth is though that the financing part is pretty basic; especially in a guarantee issue market. What really needs addressed to make a significant difference is cost of care. Last figures I saw were for 2007 (might have been 2008) and cost of care was slightly over $7000 per year per person. " . . . 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

That is far more thought than I gave to it. My reaction was just a simple OFF WITH THEIR TESTICLES. " . . . 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

Oh, there are lots more ways than that to have fear. There's deep fried fear, BBQ fear, fear creole, coconut crusted fear, fear scampi, fear cocktail, fear salad, stuffed fear, fear alfredo, . . . " . . . 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

When they point to the trailor ghetto and ask what they are for. " . . . 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 beats working for a living. " . . . 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

Not saying you're necessarily wrong, but... ... FWIW, at least tens of thousands of people consider themselves to be Scientologists (possibly millions) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#Membership_statistics Maybe the question is begged: can an organization set up explicitly for the purpose of bilking people morph into a religion? In this context, I also note that some mainstream religions and/or churches, between membership dues, income-based contributions, "voluntary" contributions (with plenty of intra-group peer pressure), building fees, religious education fees, mission and program fees, etc., etc., wind up charging their members huge amounts of money. So I really don't think a single bright-line definition will work. Agreed that modern religious organizations (at least here) have a business side to them. What I was more getting at is the intentions (and actions) evident when those religions started up. Their founding was not based on taking in money, even if that is one of their current activities that results from them having a business arm to their organizations. Scientology was established expressly for the purpose of making money, and as such should at the least be taxed as a business - and as a business would be considered very shady if not outright fraudulent. (Sort of like the folks that will "sell" a person a star and put their name on it). Strictly opinion - I believe the religions I mentioned would be around in some form or another even had they not developed poitical and business characteristics along the way. They would have far less institutionalized power; but would still provide spiritual governance for people looking for it Scientology on the other hand, does not appear to have had any interest in providing what they pass off as spiritual governance if not for being able to make money doing it. I know there are a good number of followers; but they are a tiny percent of the population. What I was asking is who here (visitors to this thread) believes it is a religion? " . . . 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 potentially about it; they are harmful. The correlation is strong and positive. It may not be 100%; but it goes way beyond potential. Similar to smoking. A smoker can dodge the cancer bullet; but to deny the correlation is to be in denial. " . . . 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 think it would be more like "Fok yoo!" He didn't also tell them he'd be back, did he? " . . . 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

Scientologists are full of shit everywhere. It is an organization set up explicitly for the purpose of bilking people. The French government simply decided to do something about it. The foundations of the Catholic, Islamic, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, and many other traditional faiths are so different that comparisons and analogies using them are not valid. Becoming familiar with a little history and applying common sense should make that clear to anyone. I'm not a supporter of organized religion; but I can tell the difference between a scam to separate people from their money and a call to spirituality (even if my personal opinion is that the calling is misguided at the least and deceptive at worst). Who in here truly believes Scientology to be a religion? " . . . 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 it is subsidized versus being forced to compete on equal grounds, then not only is it not the only way, but it will have the opposite effect. There is a window here to actually reduce the total bureacracy supporting health care financing - a subsidized government plan will have the opposite effect. If it is not subsidized, then it just becomes another competitor - in which case it will fail or succeed on it's own merits. While it is certainly open to debate, I doubt very much a government run plan could be competitive - given the government's track record of actually trying to operate a business. The government should regulate, not compete. They need to overhaul the rules in a manner that encourages competition, modernization, and innovation; and act as a clearinghouse. And for anyone who thinks Medicare and/or Medicaid is a model or proof that they can - keep in mind that those are pretty narrow product offerings to a narrow market. And if they (the product offerings and pricing) were so great, we would not have so many carriers doing such brisk business in the Medicare Supplement business. The Medicare Supplement market exists because Medicare coverage alone, even with it's heavy subsidization, is crap coverage. " . . . 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 don't get how that could happen. Our's has 2 sections that do not effect each other in any way. One side can go completely flat and there is absolutely no impacton the other side. It's basically 2 heavy duty air matresses laying side by side. Now I could see how if they were inflated at significantly different pressures and 2 people were doing, . . . something, . . . in the middle; that might put a slant on things. " . . . 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

Holy crap - where are you buying your jumpsuit?? I had mine custom-made and it was $200.. You can buy used for as little as $50. not everyone lives in America and buys suits with USD. Paid $300 this season for a new jumpsuit - a very nice one at that. Why would it be so much more expensive than in the USA? " . . . 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

Have had one for about 10 years. Very nice. Never has leaked, pump and all still work fine. Bought and modified s frame on my own (that might be key to preventing sloping). It was slightly less than a good quality mattress set of the same size (queen). Spinal support needs being very personal; it'd be nice if you could take one for a test ride. (I think they offer that - but it might be a pain to return one). I have a very finnicky back myself, with a long history of spine issues. It just happens to work very good for 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 is bad all around that she has decided not to get that care; but it is worse to remove the freedom to choose. Prenatal care should be covered with no out of pocket, as should all reasonably applied preventive care, so that there is no cost issue. (Though I suspect someone smoking 2 packs a day doesn't have a cost issue). " . . . 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 honestly do not know for certain; best guess would be $800 to $1000 per month for 2 adults and 2 kids. We do eat lots of fresh fruit, despite the winter prices, so that tends to get spendy. We do grow a good amount of food in the summer - so maybe that evens out. We're not health food nuts though - I firmly believe in balance and do not believe that an occasional sugar or salt or grease binge is going to ruin our lives. We even occasionally skip formal dinner and snack all night. (Chips and guac, followed up with real butter on popcorn, topped off with a humongous root beer float, etc). Somehow the kids are making it and are not deformed or brain damaged. " . . . 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

Sounds a lot like the activities of earliest US government. " . . . 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

Socialism and Communism don't work? Most of the world follows 1 of the 2 fiscal and social themes yet you like American Capitalism and say it's better? Communist China is the greatest creditor and we are the greatest debtor, but you say Capitalism works the best, huh? (Pssst - don't anybody tell Lucky that the engine for growth and development over the entire world is commerce. And the hybrid being practiced everywhere is closer to free-market than anything else. The only difference between states is how far the money gets spread out once it enters the system). Even the stalwarts of communism were not truly communist. Their leaders abused the shit out of the general populace. As Chrurchill said - Capitalism is where man takes advantage of his fellow man. Communism is the other way around. " . . . 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

That's not quite right. Even the most extreme libertarians are not anarchists. The dividing line between libertarianism and anarchism is the willingness to allow government to exercise force (anarchists say "no, not at all," libertarians say "only reactively."). That's a very fundamental, and fairly large, difference. Actually, they were one and the same when the term libertarianism was first used in a political/social context. Anarchists of the time picked up on the term as a positive-sounding euphemism for their rather harsh political doctrine. It now means something entirely different; and certainly does not equate to anarchy. The historical reference is irrelevant though and only of academic interest; the current usage being the only thing relevant to the claims early in the thread. " . . . 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