ShcShc11

Pretty much when you're moving towards the door. your mind will go from: "fuck, I'm such an idiot for doing this." to "fuck fuck fuck fuck" to "weeeeeeeee" Cheers! Shc

More porn, more efficiency, possibly in 3D too. Technology has come a long way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c6W4CCU9M4 https://plus.google.com/111626127367496192147/posts I surely hope they are skydive-compatible! haha. Cheers! Shc

The alternate solution to fixing the Health Care market is... Universal Health Care.

Remember though: One of the stated long-term goals in Iraq was essentially to permanently protect Saudi Arabia. If something happened in the Middle and Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraqi oil became inaccessible to the U.S, it would essentially paralyze the U.S economy in the same way Germany/French economy was paralyzed 1940-1943. Saudi Arabia was obviously America's achilles heels and Iraq War sought to protect them. Iraq is much more than just... "WMD". The concept behind Iraq was probably worth-while to pursue, but its unfortunate the U.S was unable to find an Iraqi group that had enough support to legitimately run the country. Cheers!

Its not just finger-pointing, but how complex issues always end up being dumbed-down and simplified. ...at least this is the case when people talks about economics imo. Cheers! :)

...until you become relatively stable on the belly and you feel fairly comfortable in the tunnel. I saw some people get it after 4-6 mins... some others it takes 20 mins. some others more... irregardless, its just a lot helpful because you can "second-guess" your position in the tunnel whereas its much harder to do so in a real skydive. imo, 10 minutes helps a lot, but don't stab yourself if ever it didn't work out as planned during these 10 mins.

Would be nice to have a wingsuit UFO for once :) Hugs & Cheers! Shc

Its probably going be a near-duplicate of the Montreal Skyventure. ...or so what they said during the Skyventure Montreal nuit blanche 31st March. Hugs & Cheers! Shc

who cares about the N word. Its overblown. His stance to promote against College/University is much more of an offence. Hugs & cheers! Shc

The amount of money put on the military in the U.S is most definitely wasteful. However, judging by the quite pitiful jobs Europeans NATO did on the Libyan campaign, maybe it is right for the U.S to take the lead on military issues. I believe it was around August 2011 where European NATO had serious talks about ammunition shortages. Hillary Clinton wanted to further reduce U.S involvement, but she eventually decided not to. If the European coalitions are having trouble with a fairly weak military country like Libya, then Europe should do more to build an adequate military. Hugs & Cheers! Shc

Charles Fried's comments in the Washington Post: Charles Fried was Ronald Reagan’s solicitor general. The 38th Solicitor General of the United States said: CF: I’ve never understood why regulating by making people go buy something is somehow more intrusive than regulating by making them pay taxes and then giving it to them. I don’t get it. It was comical to read the Heritage Foundation’s brief attempting to explain why they were changing their position on this. Something needed to be done about this problem. Everyone understood that. So, the Heritage Foundation said let’s do an individual mandate because it keeps it within free enterprise. The alternative was single payer. And they didn’t want that, and I’m in sympathy with that. So now all of a sudden the free-market alternative becomes unconstitutional and terribly intrusive where a government imposition and government-run project would not be? I don’t get it. Well, I do get it. It’s politics. Universal Health Care is constitutional yet the privatized version (created by the Republicans in the 1990s) isin't... The same people (Heritage Fund) who created the system are advocating privatizing Social Security with mandatory purchases from individuals . If the Republicans privatize Social Security, would this too not be considered unconstitutional? Hugs & Cheers! Shc

Well of course. Some corporations are for a tax reform, but became against it when there were talks about closing abusive corporate tax loops (we're not talking about just banks or other stereotyped "evil corporations"... Apple & Google got to be against it when their tax loop holes were threatened). People talk about "cutting deficits" (balancing the budget) yet these same people advocate tax cuts which in fact increase the deficit (quite massively too) If people have time, it would be great to sit down and read the Ryan Budget Plan (The GOP's "Path to Prosperity" budget plan). It contains barely in the specifics especially in the tax reform section - its honestly almost Orwellian. Cheers and Hugs! Shc

You lived and you didn't get injured. You made a genuine mistake (i.e: not dumb or intentional). How did you ruin it for her? (oh and you probably bought extra beer too!) Hugs & Cheers! Shc

Haha lawrocket. I think we’l agree here. The economic (and functionality) side of the system is what I focus on. Pragmatism is important. If it doesn’t work in real-life then what’s the point? e.g: War conscription ordered is probably an intrusion of personal freedom, but it is “legal” because there are extraordinary cases where pragmatism has to be taken into account. This is unrelated with the healthcare issue, but I do support Bush’s Patriot Act. Based on what has been released, it did show some real result in capturing key figures. It probably does impede personal freedom, but it is absolutely naive to think that it didn’t do good and/or Al Qaeda wasn’t planning anything. It has however been abused by some people for “other non-terrorism” purposes. I support Reagan’s action in his 1980s and did a spectacular job on the Soviet Union. Jimmy Carter is rightfully criticized for his non-intervention in the Middle East which led to the USSR Afghanistan invasion. And even if Reagan’s supply-side economics in the 1980s on stagflation was the right one, the stimulus for 2008-2009 was the right action because it was a zero-bound economic crisis (not stagflation). Frankly, I couldn’t care less about political affiliation as long as there are real (pragmatic) evidences to it. 1) When I keep reading your paragraphs, it’s pretty clear that you don’t understand it. You keep saying “it is about the cost shifting hands” when it’s about the overall cost/expenditure AND the quality AND accessibility. 2) Rest assure that I am not trying to be condescending, look down or whatever. The point for me to write and spend any time on this is to understand the other side of it and trying to figure out the rationality/evidences given. 3) I remember someone who said: “Arguing in the internet is like running in the special Olympics. Even if we win, we’re still retarded” . In other words, never take these arguments personally. Anyway, the next paragraphs are about me emphasizing the economics-side of it again since that is the part where the main argument divides. Read if you like. One of the clear goals of ACA is to diminish healthcare cost based on the GDP. That is probably one of THE main points in creating the system in the first place. Going back to the 1990s with HilaryCare and Heritage (aka ObamaRomneyCare), their primary stated goal was to bring the cost to a “reasonable level”. When Bill Clinton criticized about the health care system in post-presidency, it was always about the cost...how even the most expensive Health Care in Europe cost 13-14% of its GDP while the U.S are paying 18%. With all the talk about how Obamacare’s cost will explode (by people who are either arguing in bad faith or people who don’t bother to look at the CBO financial numbers on it), it almost became counter-intuitive to think Obamacare is going make it “efficient”. And I absolutely get it when you say: This makes perfect sense (it almost sounds common sense). However, when we look at real-life examples of different systems whether it is with Universal Health Care System or Massachussets RomneyCare, the cost caused by the “homeless guys” do not dwarf the cost savings of the overall system. You might think its “political bullshit” when they talk about the cost, but that is one of the main objective in creating a new system in the first place. A Non-Profit Health Care Option proposed in Summer 2010 was quickly shot down- it doesn’t reduce the overall GDP % cost. This is why I also keep asking: what are the alternatives if not for the Heritage/Obama/RomneyCare -or- Universal Health Care? And let’s be honest here: I don’t think there’s is anything else that was seriously proposed. Hugs & Cheers

They can always turn to Universal Health Care which is 100% constitutional. Hugs & Cheers! Shc

Fair enough. I can tell you that there are alternatives (which have already been proposed) that are more efficient than the pre-2010 U.S Health Care system. A system that essentially takes 18% of the country's GDP and constantly ranked in the lower-bracket in terms of quality isin't a system that people should keep ...on top of that, a good 50 million is uninsured. Understand that this isin't about subsidizing the ill. It is about making the economic-side of health care work. It brings me to your next point: In the pre-2010 health care system, the more people opted out of health care, the more expensive the insurance got. The more expensive it got, the more people had no choice but to get out of it causing the price to rise. This is what happened in New Hamphshire. This is why the State of New York wanted to reform it since the 1990s...this is why the Heritage (Republicans) proposed in 1994 what is now ObamaRomneyCare. This is why insurance companies like Aetna doesn't have much choice, but to find ways to kick out the ones who are ill. Not necessarily because of greed, but the system can't work without it. Your frame of mind is focused on the notions of "subsidizing"/"socializing healthcare" instead of looking at the system and telling yourself: "Was the old system working?" Of course not. The economics-side did not work. The old system needed to be fixed in order for the privatized system to work properly. Hugs & Cheers! Shc

He's a lawyer and the topic is constitutionality. Of course it's going to be abstract and theoretical. Not emotional. As it should be. Theoretical in the sense that it has no reality/real-life results behind it. This has nothing to do with emotional, but rather practicality. If ACA is bound to be inefficient and "debt would explode", then tell me a real-life example of this happening. It's definitely not happening in Massachusetts- the cost were lower than predicted. And there's a reason to it, I don't think people sufficiently understands the reasoning on it nor do they understand how it works. They don't bother to look at the CBO numbers (they can't even read it the Financial numbers!), nor at the Romneycare conclusions, etc... Its all theory created by connection two random dots and some imagination and/or articles riddled with hypothetical situations based on faulty comparisons This happens pretty much all the time in other debates like economics: (a la Austrian Economics comparing Zimbabwe and Weimar Republic hyperinflations). Hugs and Cheers! Shc

lawrocket, I like the fact that you express your ideas, but you keep thinking this argument in such an abstract theoretical manner. For example, I remember in another topic you claimed U.S healthcare is the best because it was "more expensive". "Because it costs more, then it should have better quality". Theoretically, it should. In reality, it just isin't. The old Healthcare system in which you are advocating is the same system that has brought at least 35%-50% of the foreclosures in 2005-2008. "Half of all respondents (49%) indicated that their foreclosure was caused in part by a medical problem, including illness or injuries (32%), unmanageable medical bills (23%), lost work due to a medical problem (27%), or caring for sick family members (14%). We also examined objective indicia of medical disruptions in the previous two years, including those respondents paying more than $2,000 of medical bills out of pocket (37%), those losing two or more weeks of work because of injury or illness (30%), those currently disabled and unable to work (8%), and those who used their home equity to pay medical bills (13%). Altogether, seven in ten respondents (69%) reported at least one of these factors." http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1416947 It is the same system that has consistently been rate d lower quality internationally. There are real-life experiments that are happening right now and that are WORKING. Massachusetts' health care is working (aka RomneyCare) (and if you want me to, I'l send you the link again). There are studies done that answers this very question you ask: Why do young people get out? The more young gets out of healthcare, the more it would cost because only the ones that needed are in the pool. The more expensive it becomes, the more young gets out...thus a non-ending vicious cycle. ACA works to be a backstop against this. New Hampshire wanted to prevent insurance from denying pre-existing conditions. What happens? The rate shot up and the young got out- this is documented and a real-life example. What do insurance companies have to do to defend themselves? Kick the sick ones out! (not necessarily because they are evil, but because they have to for the good of their business) -> Look at Aetna's defenses (they are not groundless). This whole notion of "taking away individual freedom", "USA debt would explode" are just buzzwords found in hypothetical articles claiming to know the truth when its nothing more than Austrian Economics claiming since 2008 that U.S Interest Rate will explode any time soon (oh did I mention the U.S Rate is still at an historical low). Its fine to have predictions, but at least base it on something more concrete. Hugs & Cheers! Shc

I love how people keep advocating "freedom" into this. What is your alternative to the health care system? Are you honestly advocating for a system where people with pre-existing conditions are unable to get any care? ...where there are teams that are dedicated of finding a way to get you out of the insurance when you are sick? The teams dedicated to this aren't there because the insurance are "greedy and evil"; they are there because it becomes a necessity to filter these clients out to make the system work (some of which is clearly written in their annual Financial Statement Reports). Freedom freedom, let the sick freely die. Hugs & Cheers! Shc

If the Heritage Health Care Plan (aka The 1990 GOP Plan/Romneycare/Obamacare) is ruled unconstitutional then the only solution left is Universal Health Care. The GOP RyanPlan to privatize medicare will also be deemed to unconstitutional... bizzaro world. Hugs & Cheers! Shc

James Cameron. Climate Change. It is pretty obvious that a topic involving Mr. Cameron would very likely to degenerate into the climate change's effects on the ocean's aciditic level. Hugs & Cheers Shc

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/03/120325-james-cameron-mariana-trench-challenger-deepest-returns-science-sub/ Good for him! Cheers! Shc

Obama actually terrifies alot of people who value their individual freedom, and who value their country enough to not want it awash in unsustainable debt driven by utopian dreams completely detached from any fiscal reality they live in. OK, but Ronald Reagan is dead so harping on the problems he created isn't reason to hate Obama. Though Reagan pushed the U.S debt much higher, his administration should regardless be mostly judged on his handling of the Soviet Union. Talking about the Reagan debt would probably be like criticizing FDR for ramping up debt during WWII. It should be viewed in context with the world politics of its time. Cheers & hugs! Shc

In regards to ACA (aka Obamacare). I'm going try to be open-minded with it since I've been reading on the budgets, RomneyCare studies and CBO at work these days. I really am curious: what other alternatives are there ? Obamacare is literally the alternative proposed by the Republicans since the 1990s to Universal Health Care. They've been the main solution for the Republicans in the last 17 years. It is driven based on the free-market principle. If anyone read the GOP system for medicare (The RyanPlan), then his proposition is to use the SAME system to privatize medicare for the old! That is what Ryan's voucher plan is. So let's say Obamacare becomes unconstituional, then the Democrats would obviously push for Universal Health Care (through medicare illegibility expansion). So my question is: Does anyone have any studies/papers for alternatives to the 1990 Republican heritage health care (aka RomneyCare & Obamacare) and Universal Health Care (aka HillaryCare)? Thanks! Shc