pirana

A pretty meaningless number without knowing what percent of claims are denied to begin with, and also without their definition of "just." No excuse for fraud on either end or any place in the system; but this is positioning at it's worst. Some genuine research versus this "one estimate" would probably show "unjustly" denied claims to be a very small percentage of all denied claims, much less all claims in general. (Even using a relatively liberal definition of "unjustly"). So, for those making the claim, what exactly constitutes unjustly denying a claim? Examples please, and numbers for the percentage of claims denied for each unjust reason. " . . . 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 a tagline. A bit tongue in cheek, a bit of truth, intended to get a grin while taking a little poke at how adrift so many people are on the awareness scale. Not intended to define me as a person, but you are free to attempt to read my personality from it if you like. Wonder what your take would be on my old one - Don of Borg - Cool, calm, collective. " . . . 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 tagline is a comment on how unnecessary it is to use force. Nothing more. My opinion on why force is unnecessary would get me flamed by those that live the victim role in life; expecting to be cared for cradle to grave and making someone else responsible for everything about their lives. What rights do you think workers need that they don't have now? "Compensate them fairly." What do you mean by that? IMO, if an employer has an opening, a person agrees to take it, and the wage is agreed upon - that is fair. If a wage is too low for the market, the employer will not be able to attract the people they need and either they will have to offer more, or close down. It's called free market forces and they are amazingly good at ensuring people end up with what they deserve and with what they've earned. I never thought of paying or charging what the market will bear as exploitative; not from either end or by any party. I do understand the victim mentality of a person crying out whenever they do not get what they personally desire; despite the fact that they are quite simply living out the consequences of the choices they have made. " . . . 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

But that's the flaw of logic that I see in so many religious arguments. The "burden of proof" is not to produce evidence to disprove religious beliefs, but to produce evidence to prove them. Is personal sworn testimony, under oath, admissible as evidence? Maybe so in court, where 2 parties are each telling their version in an attempt to convince a jury of laymen the other is lying, or less truthful. In the investigation of claims of fact for the purpose of establishing evidence - NO. " . . . 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

Actually it apparently drives them down. We drove billions of miles fewer last year, dropped consumption, drove prices down and apparently caused such a rapid change in oil demand that they were storing oil offshore in tankers. It was cheaper to store the oil than it was to bring it on to market at the lower price. We're $1.50/gal cheaper than we were a year ago. You are correct; the other person has it backwards. For a fixed supply, reduced demand equals lower price, and increased demand equals a price increase. Of course with the price drop, production will eventually go down and a new equilibrium will be reached. Although in today's world, equilibrium may be unattainable. More realistic would probably be non-shocking fluctuations winthin an acceptable range. " . . . 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

There would be no such thing if everybody is all in all the time. This is already true in states that have enacted continuous coverage legislation. As long as a person maintains continuous coverage (I believe with no more than a 62 or 93 day maximum gap - somebody should have told the writers that there are no 3 months in a row with 31 days each) it doesn't matter from where it came or to where they go. One glitch is that some of those states also still sell temporary contracts - not very congruent with continuous coverage provisions. " . . . 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 true. Our family would be a great example. If we were to take advantage of the program this week we could take one 1985 clunker out of action, and also combine it with a trade in of a 34 mpg/250k mile car (running nicely) and a 26 mpg/150k small pickup. The dealer would end up selling a new car, scrapping one and gaining two fuel efficient automobiles that could be sold or auctioned. edited to add: putting more fuel efficient cars on the road will reduce fuel demand, driving down prices. High fuel prices hit poorer families disproportionately. I'm thinking the same thing. I've got a car that will turn 200,000 next week. I've been debating whether or not to repair some things, or call it done. Doubt if anybody I could sell it to is going to spend money to repair it; so it becomes a matter of me driving it to it's grave; or retiring it a bit early (along with it's 20 MPG oil burning engine) and using the program to get myself into a clean running 30+ MPG vehicle. I was thinking of invoking the "pursuit of happiness" clause as a good reason for the government to buy me a Bugati. Think I could get the administration to earmark some funds for that purpose, you know, strictly on Constitutional grounds. " . . . 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

Used to be a best kept secret, though awareness is growing, that regulators and legislators quite frequently played together and allowed most political subdivisions to be exempt from anything that was at all restrictive. Again, 2 of the most important early steps that should be taken if anybody is serious about reform of health care delivery and health care financing are: Regulate at the federal level, and eliminate loopholes based on size, occupation, union status, geographic region, etc. A truly level playing field. Remove the employer from the equation. If we are going to have everyone covered, regardless of employment status; employer based groups become completely unnecessary. It's just another layer of bureacracy; added costs and no value. " . . . 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 fact is atheist do not need to beleive in anything other than reality, in the end thats all we have. Since it really does not matter what happenes in the end, what happenes now does and we believe in living our lives to the fullest. Atheist do not do good under the blackmail of hell, we do it because it's the right thing to do. And just maybe if people did not think they would be, or need to be, salvaged at the end of their life, regardless of how good or evil they had behaved; they might live their life just a bit differently. It just occurs to me that if you believe there is an afterlife where all is peaceful and bliss regardless of how nasty you are, as long as you are willing to confess your sins, there is less incentive to play nice. Everyone ought to live their life, indeed each day of it, as if this is it. (I think that is the name of a Watts book, "This is it.") How you live, every day, and what you leave behind, is what you are (were). Nothing more, nothing less. You do not get to draw a new hand on your deathbed. " . . . 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 agree. This appears to be a pretty effective program; having a hard time seeing the downside. The points of contention brought up (the tactical, not the ideological) hardly seem significant. Appears to be more like WPA, except with car sales instead of railroad trestles. " . . . 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 only one that I see so far is the bill should have only allowed the credit to be used for domestic made cars. Keep the money in America!!! Support American jobs! Aren't an awful lot of the "imports" especially the Japanese ones, already built 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

Seems to me it was the Prez that was in such a hurry to begin with. Appeared to be trying to capitalize on urgency and emotion with his pleas to get something passed before too many people took the time to scrutinize it. Wasn't he making comments like 'Everyday we wait . . .' and 'If we wait . . .' Glad that did not happen. And why is it always a bus that people get thrown under. Not very sinister, and could be much stronger statement if it was say, a Sherman tank, or a bulldozer, or a steamroller. Wonder how it got started out as bus. Though we do have steamrolled and bulldozed in pretty regular use. Personally, I'd rather be squeegeed. "Yeah, those bastards really threw him in front of the squeegee." " . . . 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

Exactly. This kind of whining, from both sides, sounds like "It's their fault for not agreeing with me, . . . right 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

What does making him unable to breed accomplish? " . . . 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

People either love (or like) what they do or not. Nobody is forcing anyone to stay at a job or work with someone if they do not want to. Staying on and complaining is just so much noise. What is the real question? Or what is your position statement? Do you think a person should be guaranteed happiness in their career choice? " . . . 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 web necessary. All anybody had to do was watch her exit news conference. What a goof. " . . . 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

Baggage in the form of cultural norms. " . . . 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

How many Fortune 500 companies have you worked for? They call it "human resources" for a reason. That's all employees are, a resource. As it should be. Employers have a job that needs doing, and employees have a need to earn a living. So they agree to arrangements to exchange labor for cash. If either side decides they no longer are getting what they need, end the arrangement. Simple enough, and nothing unfair about it. Either side whining about it is just so much noise. " . . . 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

So now you're making fun of their arithmetic skills? " . . . 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. Even better if they were to take some of the people doing them too. " . . . 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 they are still doing "paper work" than that is part of the problem. Continuing to use paper and complaining about admin costs is somewhat akin to driving an antique as a daily driver and complaining about the upkeep. " . . . 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 got a problem with cartoon characters?! " . . . 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 ordinary citizens in Texas (please forgive the oxymoron) can do it, why not the cops? Wasn't that guy who shot the person that had robbed his neighbors house shooting at the guy as they were attempting to leave? From what I read he was certainly not on the attack. But seriously, shooting at people leaving a crime scene, especially if they are still suspects (not yet guilty) seems a little over the top. I'm not even sure they should be shot even if they were seen to commit the crime. Give chase, gather information, try to catch them - but just outright shoot them because they are suspects. Hmmmm. " . . . 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

"Apocalypse? We've all been there, It's do or die, why should we care?" Life in the Foodchain. Cut the cake Pass your plate Hope it goes 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

YOWZA, that is extreme. Got a reliable source for that? Hard to believe such a polished political machine would bring somebody that says that kind of shit on board. As far as forcing doctors; I don't think there will be much of that; other than what somebody else mentioned about financial threats to their income stream. Such as the way it is today - if you accept Medicare patients, you must accept Medicare payments. " . . . 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