TomAiello

I think it's going to depend on your definitions of "wealthy" and "white". Also, probably on your definition of "in" the party--are we talking about people's voting preferences, or just those people who are political activists in their spare time? Assuming that wealthy means over 250k per year income (Obama's definition) and that "white" means straight western european ancestry, I'm going to guess no. If you restrict wealthy to people who have no need to work, or include those of Indian and Asian ancestry in "white" (as affirmative action generally does), then it may be so. I actually know loads of Republicans who are caucasian, but generally fall into middle (or lower) income categories. Besides, aside from African Americans (who are overwhelmingly democrats) ethnicity is actually a surprisingly bad indicator of party affiliation. If I recall correctly, the wealthiest and most republican ethnic group in the USA is Indian. Japanese and Vietnamese Americans are also more likely to vote Republican, although the last time I saw the numbers, the Japanese Americans were above the average income level and the Vietnamese were below. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Post #16 -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I hade to read the title again to check which country that you were on about ...... could have been a number of them Nah. Gordon Brown doesn't talk to God...he IS God. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

The real data is even more interesting. I read a series of articles about it in the Economist a while back. Let me see if I can find some of them on-line. Democrats tend to control areas with greater income disparity. This is probably because people there (both the rich and the poor) see the difference daily, and want to change it. Republicans tend to control areas where income is distributed equally. Again, this may be because they don't see the point of re-distributing wealth when folks are pretty close income-wise. Some of the data even suggests that people who move between these sorts of areas are more likely to change their voting patterns, and that changes in the income distribution of the areas also changes the voting patterns. Basically, democrats are pushing for redistribution to create income equality, while republicans are already living in the democratic utopia. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Without Confucius, I can't see that being a viable strategy for the Iranian regime. The underlying nature of Islamic culture is very different from the confucian-ist chinese culture. And there are some fairly strong pre-Islamic persian cultural tendencies in Iran, too. I think that people there are a lot less likely to roll over and forget Tienanmen. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

The whole point is to reward the political faithful with a turn at the trough of government. It makes sense to do that as close as possible to the time you want their obedience. Reward obedience, punish disobedience, control access to the feed. Politics follows many of the same principals as training a dog. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Indeed he does! I saw a bumper sticker a while back that said: "Jesus Saves....but Gretzky steals, and he scores!" -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Then Bobby gets Reyes Syndrome from the ASA and has to go to the ER... Now a VERY SICK lil Bobby.... maybe even a dying Bobby And the parents then go to the lawyers. And then Bobby's parents sue the doctor who saw him for free, hoping to collect their millions. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

$3 trillion? I doubt that very much, because it's likely that the first third is the easiest. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Interesting article on the costs of the Obama plan here. Amazingly, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that coverage for 16 million of the currently uncovered 51 million people (roughly 1/3 of those currently uninsured) will cost a trillion dollars. What would it cost to cover the other 2/3rds? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Those were lame, too. Just because there are jerks on the other side of the aisle doesn't make it ok to be one on your side. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

That word has radically different usage and interpretation on different (English speaking) continents. It's a lot less offensive in Australia, or England, than it is here. FWIW, the word "fanny" has a similar usage spread, but in the other direction. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Nice job of close minded stereotyping. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Neither one is ok. Honestly, there's enough stuff to joke about without falling to the level of skin color. Have you seen the size of the man's ears? Better yet, how about the size of his deficits? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I remember when I was 4 or 5 years old, waiting up late (at least it seemed late to me) to talk with my grandparents on the phone. They lived in Teheran from about 1975 right up until the revolution. My grandfather got to make one call back to the States each week, and he alternated between his two children (my mom and her brother). So every other week I got to stay up late and get on this incredibly crackly phone connection to Iran. Then I remember watching the news and, through a little kids eyes, seeing my Grandpa walking off an airplane (it was the last plane of Americans out of Iran, and they had zoomed in on him deplaning, I think it was in Germany, because he was so obviously American--leather jacket, cowboy hat, cowboy boots). When he died in the early 90's, I inherited an old Peugeot moped with Farsi writing on the tires, which I rode to and from class for a while (I was in college at the time). -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

With Obama stickers on them, and a copy of Al Gore's movie in the back, playing on their apple laptops. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Which "both" sides? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Why would a Persian even want to remember the word "shah", let alone use it as their ID? Because it's his name? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I was told there'd be pie? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Wasn't he the guy who made millions suing doctors over birth complications, which resulted in the use of a bunch of additional equipment which showed zero actual improvement in outcomes, but made each and every birth in the US cost more than a thousand dollars extra? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Not to be cold, but that's how it has to be. No it's not. Under our current system, that (hypothetical) patient would have purchased private insurance, and be covered by it (hence they'd get there care). My concern is that under a (again, hypothetical) government insurance system, they'd be unable to find private insurance coverage (because private insurers have been crowded out) , but would be denied by the government insurance (because they don't have enough expected life left). In this hypothetical instance (which has to be hypothetical because we don't have any details to work from), it's possible that the new system would actually provide less care to someone--even though under the current system that person could pay for it. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Because they couldn't afford to pay for it. Some people really do carry health insurance as insurance against the unforeseen. It's is possible that one of them will have health insurance because they might need a hip replacement. The concern is that you'll see private insurance (their option for paying for the hip replacement) crowded out of the marketplace. And that with no private insurance option to pay for it, they will be unable to pay cash up front. It's going to be hard for private insurance companies to compete with the new government insurance company. Some of them will probably fail, since they lack the (virtually infinite) resources of their new competitor. Their failure could leave some people with the inability to acquire the private insurance they have now, but also unable to have a procedure approved by the government insurance (because it would be deemed wasteful to spend the money on someone with only 5 more years of expected life, or whatever). -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

The concern of the AMA is that the public insurance would crowd out private insurance, so that no one would be able to get insurance to cover that hip replacement in an older patient (because the insurance companies would fade out over time), and the public insurer would deny the operation due to age. Which would mean that the only people getting hips replaced would be the very wealthy (because the merely upper class couldn't afford it, and they couldn't buy health insurance to cover it, either). I think we're likely to see a sharp reduction in the number of private, primary health insurance options, and the growth of a bunch of new "supplemental" insurance plans that cover things the government won't. In this scenario, my worry is that the chronically or terminally ill (or even just old and sick) will be unable to purchase the supplemental insurance, and will be denied coverage under the public system (due to low odds of "recovery" making the spending "wasteful"). -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Low pull, resulting in high speed impact. Yep. I pretty much have constant pain. After a long day of repetitive motion is when it's the worst (like packing all day). The thing that makes it best is getting good low impact exercise (I'm swimming 60-90 minutes every day at this point, and it helps a lot). -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Tofu. Doesn't everyone carry a Back Up Tofu? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com