georgerussia

Some are, some aren't - it depends on doctor. But let's see your possible fixes for this situation: - If you try to increase the Medicare payments: aren't we already in debt?! Are you really want to enslave our grandchildren?? - If you somehow require some doctors to accept Medicare (like federally funded hospitals are): this is socialist and against the free market. What else? Everyone sees where the problems are, it's just hard to come up with a working solution. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Wow. I though this "purity test" was about not sucking dicks in public restrooms, or not having affairs, but it seems to be about opposing Obama healthcare/cap'n'trade, and vote against organized unions! I really wonder why Republican party has any support at all as a party. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Where did you get that? Middle class is not happy with what they have now - even local Republicans admitted that current system is screwed, and need fixing. They just don't agree with the proposed way to fix it. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Assuming your information is correct, 2009 - 1970 = 39 years, so the 34% raise spread over 39 years is less than 1% a year. Looks like regular inflation adjustments, and most likely it doesn't even cover inflation. But considering that the price of the individual health plan I had went up 60% during just last four years, I would conclude from your post that the government did excellent job while managing Medicare costs. At least it was much better than private industry does - and note that Medicare does not have freedom to reject/dump patients who are too expensive, like private insurers do. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Who cares? It worked. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This is obvious - the Dem option provides more, and it will cost more. Republican option didn't impress me at all - this was only partial solution, which did nothing to fix the major issues (pre-existing conditions and unpaid ER visits). I didn't understand what exactly HC bill does not have? There is "private option" via regular health insurance, as it is now. Yes, because there are people like me or several others right here who do not like status quo, and want it to be changed. Forcing us to keep status quo just because you feel it's better is exactly like that. Pretty much the same choice the people who DIDN'T support the Iraq war had once it got passed. Politics and law is all about forcing others to follow what you consider "the right thing". And all politicians do it, be they Dems or Reps. My whole post was that what Dems are doing is not different from what any politician would do, and not even different from what YOU would like to do. That's the point. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

In my opinion the second one is actually better line to use in mass-messaging if the guy just wants to get laid. Those who agree to ride his bike are not necessary going to go to bed with him. Those who would reply to a second phrase are much likely to end up in bed with him. It also filters out those who would not, which is a good thing. Online dating works differently from real one (I even wrote an essay about it a few years ago - seems like little changed since that), you can talk with hundreds of people in a day, and filtering out those who are not your target audience is very important, as it allows to spend more time on those who are. And as you see, it worked very well - you obviously weren't his target audience, and you filtered yourself out. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

So is "Forcing people to do the right thing" I assume this means that you DID NOT read the actual report, and once going through this, did not find any evidence to support your claim, therefore admitting it's false - right? For example, right here some of them tell us that public option should be eliminated, even if it is better for some consumers - because it will cut into profits of the private industry, forcing some of them to shut down. This way they try to force everyone to support private industry, including those people who would do better on a public plan, and therefore do not need private health insurers. Fortunately their powers are very limited now. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Did you read the actual CBO report? I went through it, and while I hardly understood most of the things there, it was pretty clear even to me that there is nothing there saying that "Obamacare option is going to cost MORE than private insurance" - which, in fact, is very vague phrase itself. Why not? If you think it's ok to force others to do what you consider "the right thing", then you have no stand to complain about anyone else who tries to do the same, and forces you to do what they consider to be "the right thing". * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Bingo! You just explained the reason why public option (and removing antitrust exemption) is necessary - exactly to prevent this kind of scenario. Of course, there are still people here like rushmc, who want your and mine insurance costs to go up so health insurers can packet some real profits, and not those ugly 5% they are getting now - because they think it is "right thing to do", and therefore, like good Christians, they would like to force everyone to "do the right thing". It would be a "forced purchase" if now the people who chose not to purchase insurance would be turned away from hospitals. The problem here is that there is no law which would require a grocery store to give you food even if you cannot or do not want to pay for it. There is no law either to require a car dealership to give you a car even if you cannot or do not want to pay for it. But a hospital is required to treat you even if you cannot or do not want to pay for it. Obviously someone has to pay for it. There is no real alternative here. A hypothetical example would be someone signing a waiver saying something like "I refuse to participate in health insurance plan, so if I ever get into ER without cash in hands or bank guarantee, I hereby give the ER permission to end my worthless life and donate the organs" - but this obviously wouldn't fly. Correct. It depends on how one defines "better". For some "better" would be cheaper - and they'd choose it. For others "better" would be less rationed - while more expensive, they'd choose it too. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Well, then it means Catholic Church is just a political whore. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Seems like what you need is web content management system. Check this category of free CMS software. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

$72 on T-mobile with three phones. Family plan with 700 minutes includes two lines, and $10 for extra line. Blocked messaging is free. Similar AT&T configuration was $20 more, that's why I switched. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

That was exactly my thought too. After all, they seem to have no problems to support pedophiles until it was made public. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I know (the first year I worked in U.S I was on 1099, and had no idea I need to make quarterly payments; the penalty was pretty insignificant though). However this seem to be a different case, and you're completely fine if you paid your taxes at the end of tax year. This is where I'm not sure. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This is actually a very popular discussion topic in Russian forums, and some people even claim it's completely legal (like if someone else signs your W-4 or so). * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

That what I was told on another Russian forum as well. But in my opinion it's flawed since the number of allowances you're supposed to put should be based on "from line H above or from the applicable worksheet on page 2". So I don't see how could you legally put a random number there, and facing a potential perjury charge to save $100 sounds like complete waste to me. However I'm not a lawyer, and I know some people who did exactly that, and are not in jail (yet?), so one can claim "it works" too. But claiming you're married while you're not is pretty obvious lie. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I'm really interested to learn how would you implement this? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I wonder if you're afraid of Humbukumba? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This would be illegal, as when signing W-4 you're stating under penalty of perjury that the information you provided is correct. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

IMHO this is kinda not true. First, I do not know ANY single mass transit system which does not cost taxpayers anything, i.e. is self-sufficient. In every country, in every city I lived local mass transit systems were either owned by the government, or received significant contributions. All of them had negative income. Here in Silicon Valley we have VTA, BART and Caltrain, and they all cost taxpayers something. Second, a country with a well developed mass transit system usually is populated much more dense (speak about NYC). And if you to suburban areas in those countries, their mass transit typically consist from a bus running twice a day, and a train station 10 miles away. What you describe is stealing from budget, not pet project. In this case the project may actually have a good chance to turn a buck, but since the money are stolen, it will not happen anyway. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Health secretary: Keep getting mammograms at 40 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/11/19/MNDT1AMR5L.DTL So nothing really changed. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Me too. I don't really care what cashier (or anyone else) thinks anyway. Are some people really that insecure? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

so you think we should let the criminals out of jail? the three strike rule (imo) would greatly reduce crime. removing it would give many a reason to continue to steal. I know I'm pretty cynic and completely insensitive person, but one would have to steal a lot of stuff to steal 40K per year for 25 years (unless they become Enron or AIG executives, of course). * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I have no idea what you're talking about. Suggestion: if you're reading shit, don't assume everyone else reads it too. You do understand that this panel conclusion has nothing to do with "DEMOCRAT healthcare plan", which is not even a law yet? But I still don't understand you. You've been complaining about government spending and arguing for limiting the costs for ages, and now when you get a measure which may potentially limit such spending, you gonna complain again? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *