Lucky...

I can. I for one am sick and tired of Anthem pocketing my raises, and my future raises. You did see the wall street report showing HC companies profits are lower than companies of the same size on average, correct? Yet the ins cos want to lock up HC.....hmmmmm. Must not be that bad. Who said it was bad? But saying the insurance companies are making obscene profits is a lie Profits are up and down, but they are still measured: A) In millions / 100's of millions B) As profits and not losses. I didn't post some union rag or some lefty rag, please keep your right-leaning crap off of here, there's plenty of static out there with abstract and skewed numbers. http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/insurance-co-profits-good-but-not-breaking-records/ Your post dont mean a damned thing my friend Keep my right wing crap off of here?? Your post backs my point No record breaking profits at all Big money? Hell yes but they risk big money to get it so it is all a mater of proportion You anti business left wing progressive radicals are fun to tweak cause you make it so easy OOooooooohhhhhhhhhh, evil profit Stop it dude My tummy hurts from laughing at you so much -- You can post all the emoticons you want, where did I say they were making record-breaking profits? -- In a climate where usually strong busnesses are going tits-up by the day, to even turn a profit at all, let alone in the millions is a rare bird, yet you call that normal and think that they are not getting all the breaks. Right now most industries consider the health business to be very stable when many industries are trying to weather the storm, the HC industry measures their profits in +++millions / +++100's of millions. -- "Your post dont mean a damned thing my friend" = that speaks volumes -- "Keep my right wing crap off of here??" Yes, RW data that is skewed or otherwise abstract. I posted a neutral site on purpose, with all the bias sites I had to weed-thru. -- "Your post backs my point No record breaking profits at all" Where did I say they were record-breaking in this thread? You once again dishonestly put words in my mouth and then celebrate. Try the foreign concept of honesty. -- Big money? Hell yes but they risk big money to get it so it is all a mater of proportion Gee, I don't see a lot of HC businesses going tits up like the auto business, banking business, mortgage business, etc. Where is the risk? Just don;t see it. -- You anti business left wing progressive radicals are fun to tweak cause you make it so easy I want balance, you want corporate fascim.

Conservatives rallied about the black helicopters, inferring false paranoia, now that they are not in power, they are the ones who are realistically crying 'conspiracy.' I think it has a lot to do with who's party/ideologies are in power as to how many black helicopters are circling overhead.

I can. I for one am sick and tired of Anthem pocketing my raises, and my future raises. You did see the wall street report showing HC companies profits are lower than companies of the same size on average, correct? Yet the ins cos want to lock up HC.....hmmmmm. Must not be that bad. Who said it was bad? But saying the insurance companies are making obscene profits is a lie Profits are up and down, but they are still measured: A) In millions / 100's of millions B) As profits and not losses. I didn't post some union rag or some lefty rag, please keep your right-leaning crap off of here, there's plenty of static out there with abstract and skewed numbers. http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/insurance-co-profits-good-but-not-breaking-records/

Ah, some of us pointed out his progressive leanings the day he got elected No news here cause it is as expected By the way, who said the Dems were dead? In an interview he stated clearly he would vote in ways he thought was good for his state Hmmmmm, wonder what he got offered You're addressing everything but the issue. Brown was supposed to be the start of the end, the big change of momentum, yet he seems to side with teh D's in his debut as Senator on this issue. What does his state have to do with a federal bill? I asked you who said it? Who said Brown is the beginning of the end? He ran against Obamcare and he will stand by that I think but the rest with him is wide open Now, who said it? Did I quote anyone? The general gist from the RW is that the gov sets are a signal, Keneddy's seat was a signal that the Dems will lose majority. Don't make me do a search. Sure, he's for human suffering, I'm not saying he's human, he ran as a Republican after all, I'm just saying he isn't a total lock-stepped zombie and that the Dems pulled off a victory.

Ah, some of us pointed out his progressive leanings the day he got elected No news here cause it is as expected By the way, who said the Dems were dead? In an interview he stated clearly he would vote in ways he thought was good for his state Hmmmmm, wonder what he got offered You're addressing everything but the issue. Brown was supposed to be the start of the end, the big change of momentum, yet he seems to side with teh D's in his debut as Senator on this issue. What does his state have to do with a federal bill?

I can. I for one am sick and tired of Anthem pocketing my raises, and my future raises. You did see the wall street report showing HC companies profits are lower than companies of the same size on average, correct? Yet the ins cos want to lock up HC.....hmmmmm. Must not be that bad.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100223/ap_on_bi_ge/us_congress_jobs Democratic jobs bill advances past GOP filibuster OOPS, up side your heads. So much for all of your momentum

And if you use it, you get penalized, unlike gov svs that just keep comingg as you remain qualifed and a need exists.

I'd pay money to see an accountable peer review process in the "news" industry. Sadly though, the peers aren't much better. The news is an opinion driven from the private sector mostly, journals come from many state universities, so checks are necessary via peer-reviews. Peer reviews from the media would just be opions from other for-profit media outlets, I wouldn't put a whole lot on the TV or internet(s).

I can. I for one am sick and tired of Anthem pocketing my raises, and my future raises. And I'm sick and tired of the fed & state govts pocketing 40% of my income. But you're not sikc of the wars, the roads, the schools, etc, etc, etc.... go live in teh woods and avoid taxes.

on the other hand, they could save face, win politically, and make improvements to our healthcare system. all they have to do is start over and break things down into bite sized chunks instead of one huge bill that the majority of the public is against. they could identify maybe 5 to 7 of the largest reasons health care is so expensive and work on each one individually, as in only one issue per bill. the thing is, most people on both sides of the current debate agree that there needs to be reform. wiping the slate clean, breaking it down, and attacking each problem individually makes it much more likely that progress will be made. for example, issues like tort reform and opening up competition across state lines, each with their own bill, could continue to be debated, while at the same time, a compromise could be reached on the issue of pre-existing conditions. in my opinion, a major change in approach to this is about the only thing that can save the dems from big losses in november. The partisan problem is that the R's want a minor tune-up, the D's want overhaul. It's dellusional to think opening up the borders for price shopping will do anything and compromise of pre-existers? You gotta be fucking me here; what is a compromise? >>>>>>>>>in my opinion, a major change in approach to this is about the only thing that can save the dems from big losses in november. You're forgetting who elected him; the young turnout. You have to find a way to dismay those who turned out to vote him in, I don't see that yet. I do realize you're talking mid-term, but there is a correlation. So what if there are losses in 2010, it would be vastly unusual if the Deems didn't lose seats. We have to trade our huge majoroty for real change and even if passing HC means that, so be it. Winning the contest and getting no prize is like losing the contest, so fuck the trophy, I want the prize, as in real change.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/02/former-vice-president-cheney-in-the-hospital-after-chest-pains.html

That's right, if you weren't full of ad hominem as an automatic reply, you would be more concewrned with the issues than with those bringing the issues. You've kinda brought that forward onyour own. But What Andy brought in was what I had the entire time, I just paraphrased. Andy will understand this, being a lawyer, but Clinton being a womanizer and Haig being corrput with Nixon are refered to as, "Judicial Notice."

The problem lies in that the historical note doesn't support the arguement that Gen Haig was promoted over more qualified officers just that he was promoted over more senior officers... Unless someone is in a Union... Considering the absolutely immediate pulling in of Haig by Nixon after the questionable out-of-seniority promotion, the scandals, Haig's brokering of deals to immunize Nixon...... it's hard to think there wasn't a whole lot of knowledge and performance by Haig to further Nixon thru this shit. I mean, if ya wanna ignore all the brokering to get Noxon off the hook as a gratuity for the HUGE promotion, then I guess it was all clean. And that's just the starter. The Republcian Party as a whole turned ugly in the 1920's, they turned lethal in the 1970's and with Reagan in the 80's they capped it off.

Unbelievable. I know, how could such a war hero be tied to such corrpution? Oh well, it happens. No, that you can't even reign in your attacks in an obit thread. Of course, given your past history, I really shouldn't have expected anything better of you. Some people are born bitter. Others have to work at it every day. And other's yet don't address issues, just cheerlead in threads.

And since no corruption followed, that out-of-seniority promotion isn't tainted with collusion, corruption, etc. That's the point I was making and the one you've illustrated.

I don't want generals being promoted in order of seniority. I suspect I'm not an outlier on this. Do you want them promoted by corrupt presidents who later use them as yes-bitches to cover up major corruption?

Uh, you wrote that he was promoted to 4 star status over qualified candidates. That's as clear an attack as it gets. (and in typical fashion for you, not supported by any facts) Historical note: http://www.startribune.com/templates/fdcp?1266862722583 I have no real stake in this but... just because the other senior officers had greater seniority it doesn't mean he wasn't just as qualified as them to hold the position he was placed into... at the GO level very often the Position and the Rank go hand in hand... Gen Haig could have been easily just as qualified or more qualified for the position as the other 2/3 star Generals that were more "senior" then him... Culminate that with Noxon pulling in Haig in the Watergate times..... many say Ford not only pardoned Nixon, but pardoned Haig too, as if Nixon had to testify he would have had to bring Haig in in some fashion. Remember, Haig was ferociously trying to set up a pardon for Nixon as the walls were falling in. That out-of-rank promotion was and is tainted with corruption.

Uh, you wrote that he was promoted to 4 star status over qualified candidates. That's as clear an attack as it gets. (and in typical fashion for you, not supported by any facts) That was a paraphrazation for greater thibgs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Haig --> Haig remained White House Chief of Staff during the early days of the Ford Administration until Donald Rumsfeld replaced him in September 1974. By that time, Ford, in a highly controversial move, had pardoned Nixon for any crimes he may have committed as president. Author Roger Morris, a former colleague of Haig's on the National Security Council early in Nixon's first term, wrote that when Ford pardoned Nixon, he in effect pardoned Haig as well. --> http://www.startribune.com/nation/84842867.html Nixon promoted Haig in 1972 from a two-star general to a four-star rank, passing over 240 high-ranking officers with greater seniority. The next year, as the Watergate scandal deepened, Nixon turned to Haig and appointed him to succeed H.R. Haldeman as White House chief of staff. He helped the president prepare his impeachment defense — and as Nixon was preoccupied with Watergate, Haig handled many of the day-to-day decisions normally made by the chief executive. On Nixon's behalf, Haig also helped arrange the wiretaps of government officials and reporters, as the president tried to plug the sources of news leaks. So when you fully understand who promoted him and sleeze involved around Nixon, it becomes clear this was a hook-up for favor returns. Nixon was cultivaing a yes-man; I find that dishonorable. Read teh links Kallend and otehrs posted, Haig had an ugly side, but was a war hero. So as for clear attack, Haig was promoted above >240 officers with more seniority by Nixon to work for Nixon and do his dirty work....doesn't sound like such an atatck now, does it? Or are you defending Nixon now? I guess I'm attacking Nixon too, huh? Yea, he was just misunderstood.

Moreover the RW nutters in military arms (acft, helicopter, etc) producing factories. Military personell will have a job if they want, but the peopel who make good money to keep pumping them multi-million dollar toys are constantly on the worry for fear of a Democratic cutback from congress.

Perhaps because the "O" and "P" keys are side by side, most people are tossing out a quick post in between other tasks, and it is not a big enough error to go back and edit out. I'm more curious why most of the time instead of typing "and" I type "adn" I know, I guess it could be sympathetic or something, I dunno. "The" is a killer for me (teh).

Yea, that's what peer reviewed journals are for, to keep a few quacks in-line.

same as prolly for probably? That is really annoying! yes there is a hole in the ozone layer, ice caps are melting and the sea levels are the same. Things just aren't changing like they thought it would. Mother Nature just keep making us look like fools.(at least the "experts")

That's the mistake to which he refers.

Because a majority don't want this crap laiden bill stuffed down their throats? any more discussion needed? Gee, that's funny, the House Bill passed with a simple majority and the watered-down Senate version garnered 60 votes. Appears a majority does want this shit. I imagine even now the public option could win in reconcilliation in both houses. Perhaps then teh R's would be willing to compromise...