freethefly

As I am sure you know, the overwhelming cost of any treatment is medications (Link to HIV meds cost http://aids.about.com/od/hivmedicationfactsheets/a/drugcost.htm The culprit is not the end user but, the pharm corporation. It's easy to blame those who have very little or no control over their care but, why is it that very little attention is given to profit driven pharm corporation? http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2004/03/08/gvsc0308.htm http://www.aidsmeds.com/news/am20060627.html http://www.thebody.com/content/art2597.html The last link to The Body website really details the cost and makes it clear to who really controls health cost. Not so easy to blame the sick when one can see who is most to blame in terms of cost. Actually HIV is greater in the 35-44 age range. The greater number of deaths are in the same range. The death toll is lesser after age 44 due to the greater number of deaths before. A high number of those infected will die quietly and not much is ever mentioned. So, the cost to the government is extremely small in comparrison to other illnesses. But, also note that Medicaid and Medicare as well as insurance companies are able to work out cost saving deals with the pharm companies that those who are not insured cannot. http://www.avert.org/usastata.htm The number of deaths are quickly gaining on the number of cases. http://www.avert.org/usastaty.htm Better education on healthcare would change not only the cost of HIV but all preventable illnesses. Sadly, there are those who balk from their moral pulpit when it comes to talking about such radical ideas. I see it, in a sense, happening now as the vast majority of users of the healthcare system is the ederly with chronic illnesses. I am the minority. So far, I have not yet heard anyone promoting a total control by the government on healthcare but have read of proposals that give a range of choices that cast a wide net to provide for near everyone (it would be unrealistic to assume that every person would get coverage, sadly some will fall thruogh a crack). They all flipped and flopped. It all depends on who has the power. Carter tried to bring about change. Reagan closed his eyes and pulled any plug he could. Georgie #1 contnued to pull. Clinton plugged them back in only to have Georgie #2 yank them back out. What was plugged in wasn't perfect but little was done to fix the holes that allowed it to bleed. Merely pulling the plug doesn't fix anything. Somewhere along the line savings that were hoped to happen is quickly eaten up elsewhere. Taking away any shimmer of hope does greater damage economically than treating the illness and cause. And, I believe that I agreed with you on a number of points. I do have little doubt that much will be done to ensure the health of the people in this country giving the attitudes of those in power. Of all of the health plans the crop of presidential hopefuls have the dems seems to have the best for a starting point. Maybe Republican Ron Paul has the best. Someone has to have something that can grow. It may not be perfect but, it could be a start and given time to work the kinks out, any one of the plans may work. Sadly the kinks never seem to get straightened out and only bickering occurs. I have never had "free healthcare". My last spend down was $541.00 out of pocket. That was for one month only. On top of that I payed over $2000.00 out of pocket for treatment. A couple of months ago I had a macroaneurysm in my right eye that left me blind in that eye for a couple of weeks (I have never heard of this and really thought that I went blind in one eye). I had to go to the doctor without any type of coverage as I could not afford the spend down. Who do you suppose is going to pay for this. I am. No help from the government. How much do you suppose the 3 visits are going to cost me? A lot, more than what I can afford. I have to make choices that, either way, is going to be detrimental to my health. It would be nice to have something to make life a bit easier. If it is what somewhat worked in the past then, I am for it and for fixing what was wrong with it, If not that, then whatever they come up with that shows promise and recognizing what made the last program bleed and avoiding those cracks. What I believe that you cannot see is my perspective. When everything else is expended you want whatever there is. Insurance policies are not perfect. Insurers have been known to deny coverage and/or drop clients when the cost of care becomes to great. I do not believe that you are heartless but believe that you cannot see the whole picture as someone who is caught up in the exorbinant cost of maintaining an illness can. It much more than just dollars to me. it's all about staying alive. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

If I could promise you an additional 5 minutes of life at the end of your life, at the cost of $1000 per, would you buy it? Would you ask me to pay for it for you? Would it be right for the federal government to force me to pay for it for you? There is a limit somewhere, that is all. Then complain about the soldiers who would otherwise be dead if not for the medical treatment they recieve. Take it another step and bitch about babies that are swinging towards death if not for the treatment they recieve. Kindly consider the limit when your life will someday hang in the balance and then quietly bow out. But, then I am not talking about emmenient death, I am talking about keeping people alive may it be with medications and/or surgery so, your question does not apply. It's selfish of the very healthy to blame the sick and wish to run through the hospitals pulling plugs so that they may pay a dollar less for healthcare. Myself, I want to live and don't really care if you have to pay a dollar more for your coverage. I'm the active end-user and pay far more than you do. My healthcare with Missouri Healthnet ends at the end of this month. No longer eligible so, everything will come from my pocket (Mo. Healthnet paid very little as it was). Kicking me (and others) off of the government plan is not going to save you one single penny. You're living an illusional life if you believe that it will. The cost that I pay is the cost that corporate greed dictates. It is not my illness nor anyone elses that drives cost up. It is the desire of profit that comes from the sick that keeps the cost rising. Just imagine how much an aspirin would cost if you could take the vast majority of the sick people out of the equation. The sick, in truth, actually keep cost down to a point. There is profit in sick people and very little in healthy people. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html In 2004 about a third of women were killed by intimates, whereas only about 3% of men were killed by intimates. For the 1990-2004 period two-thirds of spouse and ex-spouse victims were killed by guns. Detailed statistics for the 1976-2004 period is summarized in the following table (rounding errors give a total of 100.1%): MURDERER MALE FEMALE Intimate 5.3% 30.1% Family 6.7% 11.7% Acquaintance 35.5% 21.8% Stranger 15.5% 8.8% Undetermined 37.1% 27.7% Total 100.1% 100.1% Considering who kills who, the "criminal" appears to be the least of the problem. Best arm against those you know "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Flaming about morals?????? Funny that you would accuse me of flaming the morally apt! I'm not the one suggesting that the healthy push the sick off into a corner to die! I guarantee that if you were in my position, you would think otherwise. But, you are not, as far as I know so, you cannot understand the full scope of the healthcare dilemma from the perspective of those who are in most need of healthcare. Keeping the sick alive for another year brings them closer to the day that they may be cured. Using your anology that the sick or injured only increases your cost then we are wasting your almighty dollar on severely injured soldiers, sick babies, heart patients, cancer patients, AIDS patients and everyone else who is badly injured or severly sick. You have some nerve to accuse me of flaming the "morals"! Accuse me of screwing over the "living"? When I looked into the mirror this morning, I'm pretty sure that the person looking back was "living". For your records (please print and file it up your ass), I have exhausted thousands of my own money, I lost a home and sold my cars. I still pay out of pocket. I recently paid off over $2000.00 in medical bills that were for but a visit and blood monitoring as well as a few shots. You accuse me of driving up your cost? That is the funny! Clearly you have no idea. Go take a look at the corporate greed of the pharm companies and medical device companies. It is extremely small of you to accuse the sick. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Seems my warning was a bit late "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Careful now! Someones bound to accuse you of tinfoil hat conspiracy! "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Well that's a cute way to put it but it ignores the meat of the issue. Nearly everyone, even the rich, dies from lack of services. There's almost always some additional procedure, new trial drug, or intervention that could give someone near death a shot at additional time alive. Some services are too expensive to be worthwhile, and for people to die instead of overconsume is better than the alternative on the whole, because overconsumption by the moribund threatens the living. How about a bullet in the back of the head if the sick are too weak or chickenshit to do it themselves? Bullets are cheap. Reloads are the generics that can keep the cost of pulling a trigger down if the concern is soley the cost! A great saving for the insurance compnies that will write the bullet-head policy. Besides, how dare the ill desire to live! The threat of rising health cost for the healthy is clearly the fault of the sick. Let the sick die? Better than the alternative? Bet you will not be saying that if it were your mother, spouse, child or even yourself lying in a hospital. Wishing to live when facing a terminal illness will make you see it in a far different light. Something that those such as Lawrocket cannot understand. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

The only clear answer is hemp! Very little or no pesticides, very little if no fertilizers, very little water. Hemp has a quick turn around from seed to harvest. It does not leach the soil and it halts erosion. Henery Ford envisioned his car being ran soley on biomass fuels, particularly hemp. Rudolph Diesel at the World Expo, Paris, first demonstrated his engine being ran on peanut oil in 1898. Peanut oil being the first biomass fuel. Clearly, corn is not the golden answer but, combined with hemp and other agricultral products it can help free us and the rest of the planet from the grip of OPEC and Big Oil. Contrary to popular belief is hemp fuel is a hippies dream. Hemp and other biomass were the original fuel envisioned and implemented by those who invented the combustion engine. Short history of biomass fuel; http://www.ybiofuels.org/bio_fuels/history_biofuels.html http://fuelandfiber.com/Hemp4NRG/Hemp4NRGRV3.htm After reading the following, why is hemp not considered as a viable biomass fuel? Why is corn viewed as the main scource when it's cost to produce out weighs the output? Why is it that the DEA is allowed to hold the answer hostage? 90% of the "marijuana" pulled from the ground is feral hemp. The offsprings of the legal hemp once grown in the U.S.. Cornell ecologist's study finds that producing ethanol and biodiesel from corn and other crops is not worth the energy By Susan S. Lang ITHACA, N.Y. -- Turning plants such as corn, soybeans and sunflowers into fuel uses much more energy than the resulting ethanol or biodiesel generates, according to a new Cornell University and University of California-Berkeley study. "There is just no energy benefit to using plant biomass for liquid fuel," says David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell. "These strategies are not sustainable." Pimentel and Tad W. Patzek, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Berkeley, conducted a detailed analysis of the energy input-yield ratios of producing ethanol from corn, switch grass and wood biomass as well as for producing biodiesel from soybean and sunflower plants. Their report is published in Natural Resources Research (Vol. 14:1, 65-76). In terms of energy output compared with energy input for ethanol production, the study found that: corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced. In terms of energy output compared with the energy input for biodiesel production, the study found that: soybean plants requires 27 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced, and sunflower plants requires 118 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced. In assessing inputs, the researchers considered such factors as the energy used in producing the crop (including production of pesticides and fertilizer, running farm machinery and irrigating, grinding and transporting the crop) and in fermenting/distilling the ethanol from the water mix. Although additional costs are incurred, such as federal and state subsidies that are passed on to consumers and the costs associated with environmental pollution or degradation, these figures were not included in the analysis. "The United State desperately needs a liquid fuel replacement for oil in the near future," says Pimentel, "but producing ethanol or biodiesel from plant biomass is going down the wrong road, because you use more energy to produce these fuels than you get out from the combustion of these products." Although Pimentel advocates the use of burning biomass to produce thermal energy (to heat homes, for example), he deplores the use of biomass for liquid fuel. "The government spends more than $3 billion a year to subsidize ethanol production when it does not provide a net energy balance or gain, is not a renewable energy source or an economical fuel. Further, its production and use contribute to air, water and soil pollution and global warming," Pimentel says. He points out that the vast majority of the subsidies do not go to farmers but to large ethanol-producing corporations. "Ethanol production in the United States does not benefit the nation's energy security, its agriculture, economy or the environment," says Pimentel. "Ethanol production requires large fossil energy input, and therefore, it is contributing to oil and natural gas imports and U.S. deficits." He says the country should instead focus its efforts on producing electrical energy from photovoltaic cells, wind power and burning biomass and producing fuel from hydrogen conversion. ---------------------------------------------------------- I wonder why hemp is not pushed for a biomass fuel when it is the cheapest and fastest to produce. The plant and the technology is here to cleanly fuel the planet if only the government could get past its ignorance and use what was envisioned in the beginning. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

It confirms who controls congress. Big Oil. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

I'll let you do the source finding. You seem to do an excellent job. Somehow, I think that you are in your element. Also, you seem to hold no bias in your reports. Based on your statistics about munitions, and the fact that we can't find them all, I would also present that as a point that the WMDs could be anywhere, and some probably do exist, thus shutting down the 'No WMDs' argument. Does this mean that Santa Claus, Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy may also exist? "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

So, basically if I were to point my finger in a gun like fashion at someone and say BANG!, that would be considered a firearm? Hmmm, seems this thread is shooting imaginary pistols from the hip. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

From where? The U.S.? "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMBgSfQI49E&feature=related "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

P.M. sent "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

pm sent "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

You presume that the proposals existed prior to the start of construction of the store. That is not necessarily so. It could have been that the anti-gun politician didn't come up with the proposal until after the store construction was already underway. Good point. If this is what happened, then it points towards some level of discrimination towards certian products being offered inside Cabela's and a lame attempt to restrict them. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Would this be acceptable? Not a slam just a parody. No one should take a parody as a personal attack if the parody is done with no ill intent. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

I concur. My call for an amendment to prohibit marijuana was facetious. My point was two-fold: First there should be an end to the War on Drugs, and second the US Constitution does not authorize the Federal Government to prohibit marijuana. The history of mj prohibiton; http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/vlr/vlrtoc.htm "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Even though they are proposals, I would think that their attorenys would had checked for such (I suppose they will do such in the future). Either way, the propositions do nothing to protect the community and robs the residents of tax revenues to help improve their community. The people should be outraged by this. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

After all of the studies that were done by the feds and were scraped because they did not prove the goverments case that marijuana was the leading cause of automobile accidents, the feds have continued to bring up this one study as the difinitive study to prove, without doubt, that marijuana is an extremely dangerous drug. http://www.nida.nih.gov/NIDA_Notes/NNVol11N1/Marijuana.html From the study; This behavioral pattern in the personal backgrounds of marijuana-smoking employees was associated with negative attitudes toward work and job performance, Dr. Lehman said. The surveys found that marijuana users were less likely than nonusers to commit to the organization, had less faith in management, and experienced low job satisfaction. These workers reported more absenteeism, tardiness, accidents, workers' compensation claims, and job turnover than workers who had not used marijuana. They were also more likely to report to work with a hangover, miss work because of a hangover, and be drunk or use drugs at work. (alcoholism is the result of marijuana smoking? ) These data indicate that marijuana use is strongly associated with problematic alcohol use and a pattern of general deviance that leads to impaired behaviors and poor workplace performance, Dr. Lehman concluded. Dr. Lehman needs to pull his head from his ass as having such stuck in such a dark place leads to a problematic outcome. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

It only appears that Cabela failed to do the research in regards to the legality of selling certian items in that location. They have only themselves to blame for failing to do such. I do agree that it is a stupid ordinance. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

The hypothetical question was whether you would still drink it if it was illegal today. (Not whether prohibition is a good idea. I think we all know the answer to that.) I believe that the vast majority of people who drink alcohol would still drink if it were to be outlawed. Alcohol is a drug and those who desire their drug will continue to use it, regardless of the law. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

I disagree. Multiple (credible) studies have indicated that impairment from cannabis is minimal in comparison to impairment from alcohol use. The effects of smoking heavily affect driving on a magnitude similar to taking over the counter cold medicines as directed. Furthermore, drivers under the influence of cannabis tend to perceive their impairment and compensate for it. There is no reason to treat driving under the influence of the two very different substances the same. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/03/990325110700.htm http://www.fcda.org/driving.htm A study of mj only and driving; http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/driving/dot78_1.htm A study of mj combined with alcohol and driving; http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/driving/Marijuana%20-Alcohol%20Driving%20Study%20--%20DOT%20HS%20808%20939.htm "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Your statement leads me to believe that you have not read through the ASA website. ASA is the major leading force for legalizing medical mj. They have been the spearhead in bringing about change by use of medical research. Cotton conspiracy? Not sure what cotton has to do with patients who find relief and quality of life with marijuana as opposed to being stuck in a stupor with the narcotics that the pharm corporations have pushed for years. Your statements also leads me to believe that those at the top for legalization are dazed hippies. So far from the truth is such a belief. Those at NORML are not drugged out hippies. Those at ASA are not drugged out hippies. Those at L.E.A.P. are not drugged out hippies. These people are highly succesful professionals. Those at L.E.A.P. are law enforcement professionals. NORML is backed up with lawyers, judges, and a slew of succesful professionals. There is truth that some of those at the ground level are in fact hippies it I do believe that it hurts the cause. The last time I spoke with attorney Dan Veit, the man responsible with bringing about change in Columbia, Mo., agrees that image change is instrumental in order to change the minds of the politicians who fail to see the legitimate cause. One can argue that the powerful narcotics that are routinely pushed by the pharm companies only contribute to drug addiction and overdoses. In fact, they do. There are far more deaths contributed to legal narcotics than there are to illegal marijuana. In fact, there has never been a marijuana overdose. In fact, marijuana is not even an addictive drug. I prefer that the choice be mine when it comes to treating my condition and not that of narco-pushers. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young