TomAiello

Members
  • Content

    12,507
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2
  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by TomAiello

  1. Basically, you want to shift the burden of unpaid emergency care from the hospital that happens to provide it (as it works now) to the federal government? I don't think that's necessarily a bad idea, actually. Then the taxpayers get to share in that equally, instead of every (paying) patient at that particular hospital sharing the burden on a per-hospital basis. The major question I've got is how to do that without greatly enlarging the bureaucratic burden. Right now, individual hospitals run their charity care systems pretty leanly (since they're loss makers). Can we really federalize that system and still administer it with the same (or less) overall cost? I'm skeptical, but if it could be done well, it might actually help things a bit. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com
  2. Already happening. Yes. I guess what I should have said is "Bill wants a different system of paying for emergency care, wherein the taxpayers generally would get stuck with the bill, rather than shafting whichever ER happened to provide the care with an unpaid account. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com
  3. It's actually possible, if you count registration and possession offenses as "gun crimes". Just the facts of much greater registration requirements, combined with much more draconian prohibition, mean that you're likely to have far more infractions of that sort per firearm. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com
  4. I like Palin a lot more as a lobbying force for specific agendas than as a candidate (or elected official) who deals with all issues. I am deeply curious what she'll do next. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com
  5. If I've read his opinions correctly, Bill wants basic emergency care provided by the government, and all other care provided by the private sector. Honestly, given what I think is going to emerge from Washington, at this moment I'd be willing to let Bill become the dictator of healthcare and impose his plan, if it meant that those bozos in DC couldn't impose theirs. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com
  6. It's not "free". John paid for it, by serving in the military. John just wanted to get the medical care he was entitled to as part of his service package. You know, that stuff the government is contractually obligated to provide? If people who actually worked to get the care get this, I can hardly wait to see Social Security providing for my retirement. At which time I'm sure someone will be saying "Want to get free retirement?" Which totally misses the fact that I _paid_ for the social security, the same as John paid for his VA benefits (with his service). -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com
  7. From the Brits I've known, I'd say there is absolutely nothing straight about their teeth. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com
  8. Much easier. It's a JR thread about his hobby, the UK. That's all. Oddly reminiscent of the Dreamdancer threads about his hobby, the US. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com
  9. Did he sweep the audience with the muzzle? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com
  10. He posted the poll as a spin off of a prior discussion regarding the Senate resolution apologizing for slavery. It's impossible to post a poll within an existing thread, so he started a new one. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com
  11. To the victor go the spoils. When you can say "I won" then you can reward your friends and donors. Government is a trough. Is it any surprise that politics is a feeding frenzy? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com
  12. In the pocketbook? Other people smoking marijuana, under the current system, costs me money because: (a) they are more likely to have higher healthcare costs (and for some of them I'm going to have to pay taxes to foot the bill) than non-smokers (b) law enforcement will waste lots of my tax dollars chasing them down, prosecuting them and incarcerating them (c) the federal government will waste lots of my tax dollars waging "war" to keep the drugs out of the country There are several solutions here. First is to eliminate "crimes" that don't hurt anyone, and get the police back to their core mission (keeping people safe). Second is to stop making me pay for the healthcare of other people. If I don't have to pay for it, I've got no justification for trying to control their behavior. If I do pay for their poor health, then of course I'll want to "improve" their health "for their own good." There are lots of ancillary effects to follow those (for example, tax dollars paying for counseling and rehab to get off the drugs, or increased chances that I'll be hurt by a criminal because the police I pay for are too busy chasing people who never hurt anyone). Bottom line: any time that you want the public to "provide" for people, you create a justification for the government to take away their freedoms. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com
  13. What's the difference? And how/where do you draw the line? All human interactions are "economic" and all economic interactions are, at their core "social." In China, people try to justify "social" freedoms by claiming that they're really about business. The distinction appears to be pretty artificial to me, and largely imposed based on the personal preferences of the speaker. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com
  14. I'm not a huge fan of the "medical necessity" arguments for legalization. I honestly don't think we need a medical necessity to allow freedom. "Crimes" without victims don't make much sense, to my mind. That said, there is definitely a fringe of Christian theology that holds painkillers to be sinful (or at least pain itself to be virtuous). Remember the business with Mother Theresa not allowing painkillers in her clinics? I suppose if that's the way your thinking runs, there is some theological justification. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com
  15. 6.5G goes a long way toward putting the "one rifle for all tasks" package together, and keeping it reasonably light. The round is great. The cost of ammo and the lack of options in rifles suck, though. You probably also ought to check out 6.8 (www.68forums.com and http://www.barrettrifles.com/ammo_6.8.aspx), which I don't like as much as 6.5G, but which has much better availability and pricing on ammo and options, and is also a pretty good step up from 5.56. It doesn't have the range of the 6.5G, but it does pretty well for the shorter stuff. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com
  16. Yes, but he's working hard to put the government into a lot places it doesn't need to be, too. Social issues? Yep, I agree with him most of the time. Pulling in the bacon for his buddies back home and letting the taxpayers foot the bill? That one I'm not so happy about. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com
  17. Ditto. I work out between 60 and 90 minutes most days, some days as much as 2 hours. BMI has had me obese since age 16, when I was an All American swimmer working out about 5 hours a day. At that point I was so stupidly fit that I had no doubt I could continue swimming continuously until I fell asleep. Still, I was obese. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com
  18. Well, he should. I think it's high time we collected reparations for all our uncompensated efforts in the last couple World Wars. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com
  19. For the people to actually have ultimate control, each person must individually be free to make the decisions for themselves. When the government takes the people's freedom to choose away under the pretext of "taking care of them", that's not the people having ultimate control--it's the people being ultimately controlled. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com
  20. Absolutely. I can't imagine a military even a tenth the size of our current one being necessary for actual defense. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com
  21. I believe that was Margaret Thatcher. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com
  22. Enidine Shot Stock. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com
  23. In the early 90's, I was living in a country struggling with a socialism hangover. I heard a joke while I was there, that's stuck with me. It's actually a bit funnier in Hungarian, but roughly translated: "What is Socialism? The solution to problems that we otherwise wouldn't have." -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com
  24. Where's the "meh" option? I don't think they're at either extreme. I do think that wind power could be more viable to the public if the next few generations of windmills put a bit mor emphasis on designing for visual appeal and (especially) quiet operation. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com
  25. Let me elaborate on what I meant. In general, the evangelical christian portion of the Republican coalition is valuable (to the larger GOP) because: (a) members reliable turn out in above average percentages (b) they can be very effective campaigners both because they have generally above average motivation and energy and also because church groups (and home schooling groups) provide pre-built networks (c) they generate future candidates who generally present well (clean cut, family oriented, law abiding "wholesome" people). The liabilities associated with the group (in an electoral sense) are; (a) a perceived or real unwillingness to compromise on key issues (abortion, for example) (b) a perceived or real desire to impose their moral standards on others In general, I'd say that the religious right is a powerful lobbying and campaigning force that will never have the full support of a mahority of Americans, many of whom are uneasy with their religious fervor. The trick for the GOP is to capture the positives (harnessing the groups energy and votes) while minimizing the negatives. The easiest way to do this is to keep the leaders/motivators of the group (people like Palin) at the second rank of national politics (as VP, for example), where their followers are motivated but the perceived negatives are overshadowed by the front line leadership. One could argue that the other trick is to harness their energy while maintaining an ability to compromise on issues (like abortion) where the greater electorate is generally in favor of compromises. In the Palin case, specifically, the issue is that the McCain campaign created (post-campaign, when she no longer has to share the stage with McCain) a very visible national figure. During the campaign, she was overshadowed by McCain. Now, the GOP has to find a way to assert (and express to the public) it's willingness to compromise on some key issues where Palin is not willing to compromise--by distancing itself from her in some ways. Because, let's face it, a party composed solely of evangelical christians will never be a majority party. I concur that the bulk of the GOP political operatives appear to be going about this in the wrong manner (by attacking Palin). A more positive solution (by which I mean one that will earn them more votes) would be to build up viable alternatives in the public eye, and re-cast the party as a bit bigger of a tent--one that visibly has a bit more room for varying views on religion (and it's attendant issues like abortion and gay marriage). The democratic party, of course is trying as hard as they can to spin this to their advantage, and will continuously play up the "scary" christian conservatives in an attempt to alienate voters from the republicans. The republicans themselves have done a piss poor job of countering thie gambit. Basically, the trick is not to scare off those people who might be alienated by religious fervor, and the way the GOP is trying to do this is to downplay Palin as a party leader. I think a better way would be to emphasize some other leaders in addition to her. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com