Balta1701

QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 02:45 PM) Yeah, but probably 3 out of 4 times I hear it mentioned the person talking is referring to the ENTIRE act, and how unconstitutional it is and it needs to go. That's simply not true. You know, it'd be better for everyone if Congress just repealed the damn thing to get the stench of the phrase "USA PATRIOT Act" out of circulation and pass a new law, with a different name, with the (still constitutional) parts included. If they're talking about the unconstitutional parts, the library part is a real question (Has that ever been challenged in court?). The ACLU there also indicated they wanted to get more done to protect specific political or religious groups (i.e. the cases of police officers randomly infilitrating anti-war groups in 2003, or surveillance/rounding up of people from Mosques [see; the case currently pending against Ashcroft]).

So...that article is written intelligently enough that it actually seems to focus on the issue of renewing/checking the most controversial parts of the act (i.e. the anti-terror librarians). They do specifically mention the changing-phones issue as well.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 02:07 PM) The Cubs are out of the bidding unless they trade off some major salary. Are we really sure about that? Hasn't their ownership situation basically been resolved, to the point that if the new owner wanted to start spending money again he could?

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 01:37 PM) I'd go with Lincecain. Carpwright has a lot more assurance that even if they struggle their offense will back them up. Lincecain has no such back-up plan, and are always pitching what they see as tights games. So what does it say that Carpwright are pitching in scenarios where they have a huge lead and yet don't give up runs anyway? Like when you're up 8-1, you could give up 2 runs in exchange for outs and no one would hold it against you, yet they don't anwyay.

Hey, Mike Hampton had surgery and will miss next season!

QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 01:11 PM) A lot of teams' fans have been singing the "wait til next year" song for a long long time. Talent wins games. On paper we have a lot of talent next year just as we had on paper this year. We also have some holes. And we have a GM who we know will be aggressive in trying to fill them.

We've got another tell-all book from the last admin with a cute excerpt today. This one appears kind of raw, I enjoyed it. It's from a speechwriter from the last 2 years or so of that debacle. Only going to post 1 quote, from the bailout discussion...sums up the whole bloody administration pretty well.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 12:22 PM) http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/16/business...tml?_r=1&hp SOLD!!!!!! And the housing crisis was contained in early 2008. Technically he's probably right. A 0.5% growth rate after a 5% drop still means that the recession is over.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 06:48 AM) Why on earth would a bank want to destroy the world? G.S. made a killing at it

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 09:44 AM) No, it's not. You want treatment, you get treatment. Oh, but you might have to pay for it. Going to the ER when your body finally gives out is not getting treatment. Going to the ER for cancer, or diabetes, or even hell the Swine Flu is not getting treatment. And I still can't figure out why you're so thrilled to foot the bill for that. It's like I offer you a $5000 tax bill or a $10000 tax bill and you decide you want to pay the latter.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 09:32 AM) So in other words you are admitting people will be getting less care, and less quality of care, while the government forces people to have less tests. Interesting. And yet you're more than willing to say right now that people who can't afford tests shouldn't get them. That's what our current system does to the letter. Even for people with some insurance, but especially for people with none. Not only does this perspective continue to be inhumane...but it's still more expensive than utilizing regular, preventative care. And it's another key factor in why we appear to have a "Doctor shortage" or "Capacity shortage" or however you're defining it.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 09:19 AM) The difference is you cherry pick crap - just like I supposedly just did - to create these fallacies that do not exist in the current system. The truth is, private companies, albiet absolutely imperfect, do a pretty damn good job. You want to talk about preventative medicine - our system has so many pharaceutical innovations that keep people from being more sick - all that will go by the wayside - it's proven in Europe and Canada. Now here's one actual argument that hasn't been brought up adequately before, and it deserves to be countered...the idea that medical innovation will go by the wayside if we switched away from our current system. Now, as far as I can tell, there's no reason to believe this will be true, for a couple reasons. First, a ton of our medical research actually comes out of the socialized NIH, NSA, and other universities. Second, pharmaceutical companies don't spend that much on research anyway, and the amounts have gone through the floor over the past few years. Especially compared with the amounts they spend on advertising. And third...what companies spend their research dollars on isn't necessarily what's best for medical treatment anyway...it's what's most profitable. Therefore, we get enormous sums spent on finding different ways to get around patents/generic drug laws, and we get every pharmaceutical company developing and spending billions to advertise their own E.D. treatment every night, while things like development of new manufacturing techniques for flu shots sits laggard behind other, more profitable priorities. Here's an interview with a more detailed look at the answer.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 08:44 AM) I dont think it is the courts place. If people are that upset by it, they will stop buying the product or let it be known. The reason why this is the court's place is that our system is founded on the idea of majority rule...but with minority rights that can't be trampled just because the majority wants to. If I wanted to name a team the "Homo-bashers" or something like that, then I might never get a homosexual to come to one of my games. But that's just a minority. If I lose 25% of the country, I can still market to 75%. That doesn't mean that the other 25% should just shut up and take it.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 09:04 AM) And all of a sudden, these "47 million" will make the rest of the US stop doing "all these tests". LMAO. Oh, wait, degradation of care, quality of care goes down... I thought that wasn't going to happen? This is again, double speak. Add people, quality stays the same... cut costs, add people. BS. It can't happen. You're making several assumptions about the current system that even you disagree with if I phrase it in a different way. If I ask you if doctors were over-ordering tests to cover their arses in the event of a malpractice suit, you've made it clear that you 100% agree that is a major problem with the current system and a major reason why costs are out of control, thus you argue that malpractice reform (Yay says the right side of the Congressional chamber!) is one of the biggest keys to controlling costs. Thus, if I phrase things in a slightly different way, you're 100% willing to admit that overuse/overtreatment is a major problem in our system. You can't have it both ways. If there's no over-utilization in the system, then banning all malpractice suits for all time won't have any impact in terms of cost control.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 08:44 AM) So why is it that there is no spare capacity anywhere? Because our system is designed in a way such that everyone makes more money the more they do. The more procedures a doctor orders, the more money they make. You guys like capitalism, you ought to understand that concept; if you make more money by ordering more care, you're going to order more care for people. The British, IIRC, do something different. If you pay doctors on salary, even if they're making really, really good salaries, then you remove the economic incentive where it benefits a doctor to overtreat. This points back directly to that test-case in El Paso TX we talked about a few times, where in McAllen TX, the doctors were ordering vastly more care for the same amount of tests as the city next door and were getting worse health care outcomes.

So, doctor people...what's the long-term implications of a stress fracture in one's back?

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Sep 14, 2009 -> 09:30 PM) And just who is it in these countries that can AFFORD to get private insurance? certainly not everyone. Sure, they have the same opportunity to purchase it, but then private insurance becomes a perk of the wealthy. There is nothing wrong with that. That's exactly the system we ought to have, frankly. Establish a baseline of coverage for everyone. You get sick, you get treated. Then, if people want to pay more for things above and beyond that...luxury waiting rooms or Hell, to get to the front of the line for cosmetic surgery or elective procedures, great. That's how the French and Germans both do their health care system, IIRC.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 06:04 AM) That 50,000,000 number is crap. Also the idea that you could pile 50 million people into the system and people would somehow all get the "access" that you are infering. As is the idea that you can't treat these people. As I keep saying, other countries have fewer doctors per capita than we already do and do just fine.

Does replay actually make things better any more?

When 5-10 million or so turned out worldwide in 2003 against the Iraq war, it took the NYT 4 days of angry emails before they covered it at all with more than a paragraph. Last weekend's March in Washington was front page news for the NYT, Washington Post, and LAT the next day.

QUOTE (Tex @ Sep 14, 2009 -> 08:34 PM) Late shows are boring. Maybe you should try stewart and colbert

QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 14, 2009 -> 07:56 PM) The graph made me lol. Check the Broncos/Bengals while you're at it.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Sep 14, 2009 -> 07:58 PM) Meh. The Senate cut off some of their funding. Little Dick Durbin voted against this. I just wish Xe (Blackwater) got the same treatment for killing people. Or the banks got the same treatment for trying to destroy the world.

QUOTE (chunk23 @ Sep 14, 2009 -> 07:57 PM) Would you say a channel with Joe Scarborough, a former GOP congressman, and Pat Buchanan as a nightly contributor are liberal? What about a channel with a primetime host who encourages the Birther movement? (Lou Dobbs) Haven't you heard the protesters? Obama's a Nazi, and Pat Buchanan is a Hitler apologist. He's clearly a demycrat. He didn't even like Bush's war!

QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 14, 2009 -> 07:32 PM) http://wp.advancednflstats.com/index.php?g...eid2=selectgame The Bills had a 2% chance of losing and the Bengals had a 3% chance of losing it. Well, that settles it for me, I'm 100% convinced.