StrangeSox

As do I, but it still takes power away from the states and gives it to the federal government. Even if the "correct' reading of the Constitution is what was just ruled, it still takes away a power that the states and municipalities have enjoyed for many decades.

Question for some of the states-rights people here: how do you view this issue? Most (all?) states-rights advocates are right-leaning and I would assume support gun ownership rights, but this ruling makes federal law trump state and local law.

SCOTUS voted to uphold SOX in a 5-4 decision but changed the way the oversight board is controlled. Basically, it's easier to fire the members at-will instead of a protracted process. But the bulk of the law stands.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 28, 2010 -> 09:39 AM) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2802134_pf.html I expect that within 2 months the number of crimes involving handguns will increase 10000 percent. (and apologies if there's already a gun control thread. the search function on the site doesn't work for me, so if someone can find it and add this to the end that'd be fine with me) There's been various debates over the years, but yeah, the search function is disabled. FYI you can use google to search specific sites in the advanced search features if you're looking for something here. It sounds like, from the WaPo article, they've incorporated the 2nd to the states.

They also wouldn't have tolerated a black person going to the same bathroom as a white person. Frankly, I don't give a s*** what someone from 1950 would think. We're not beholden to false nostalgia about a golden era of America that never existed.

I enjoy some TMBG every once in a while. I still remember my first introduction to them in the Tiny Toons music videos for particle man and Istanbul (Not Constantinople).

He can say nothing, or he can say something like what Gardenhire said. Because right now he's either lying to the fan base or holds a really dumb position.

Is Gardenhire saying he doesn't want to add anything?

You're being trolled, Balta. At least that's my working assumption.

QUOTE (The Beast @ Jun 27, 2010 -> 04:12 PM) Give it a rest, and I will. It was a great series and a good run of stringing together victories. I will gladly take 4 out of 6 and I'm curious to see if the Sox will be able to continue their ways against Kansas City. It was a great series and a great last game with two (three?) really bad calls by the umpires. I'll take 4 of 6 from a crappy national league team, but I'd prefer accurate calls and a legitimate chance for Rios in that AB.

The answer is alway infinity trillion stimulus dollars.

Please tell me you're just on a good trolling kick lately and don't actually believe the last two or three posts in this thread. Kap, HCRA of 2010 is America now. Love it or Leave it. Or do you hate America, kap?

Hey Kap, welcome to a democracy. That means you don't always get what you want.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 27, 2010 -> 02:11 PM) So, now that your side lost the election and we passed a bill we were at least ok with, isn't it just as fair for us to say that if you don't like it, go somewhere else? LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT, KAP.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jun 27, 2010 -> 01:43 PM) OH, sniff, sniff, you're right. No profits. No system but single payor. It's FAAAAAAAN TASTIC. Medical innovations are only coming from places where there are single payors. Government is the only answer. Eliminate profits everywhere... we can't have that. We only get bread lines, rice patties, the best medical system in the world (no cutbacks in service whatsoever) etc. UTOPIA BABY! :::: What part of this incoherent mess is supposed to relate to anything I said? Where have I said profits should be eliminated? source please. And you need to show that the difference in innovations/ advances is because of single payer vs. large clusterf*** private/public insurance debacle. I want to use words that make sense so that an actual discussion can be had. You want to make s***ty, incorrect claims that make your position look better and then cry about it when someone calls you on it. You claimed that Britain hasn't produced any medical advances in about 6 decades in an attempt to hand-wave away a clear, real counterexample to the assertion that there is no innovation in a single-payer system. So, no, it's not "s*** nitpicky crap" to point out how ridiculous the claims you are making are and how you continually fail to support your position. source please. Hey, kap, I didn't say any of those things you keep saying I did. I'm asking for an explanation of the benefits a profit model for health insurance gives because I am unaware of them. I am not knowledgeable on the subject. However, your repeated failure to actually post anything of substance instead of a bunch of word salad does not bolster support for the idea of for-profit insurance. What protection does my insurance company offer me? What am I risking that an insurance company protects me from that Medicade or NHS (if I were in Britain) is not capable of protecting? What innovations and benefits do we get from those companies being for-profit instead of non-profit? note: Idealogical platitudes don't constitute an argument or support for a position. And, of course, you're not addressing the idea that you certainly can and do have innovations and improvements in single-payer or nationalized systems. You just keep saying the same assertions over and over and over and over without ever presenting a valid argument for it. Even if you are somewhat-correct that single-payer stifles medical research and innovation, it still stands to reason that we would be the leader in medical research due to the size of our economy and our well-established research base. Oh, and all those yummy federal research dollars supporting basic science and medical research.

where the hell was that one?.

The Sox normally hit Dempster very well.

Nice job planting the knee squarely in his back

awful call imo

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 26, 2010 -> 07:15 PM) Ah yes, the irony in that statement is great. Are you still sticking behind the idea that a single-payer system removes any profit motive for improvement?

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jun 26, 2010 -> 06:08 PM) I never said "ZERO" - but they are not a leader. That's what I want, I don't know about you. Uh, yeah, you did. You said "no medical advances". Let's see - the answer is yes (they are stagnant), and yes (no medical advances) Then you shifted goalposts to something I didn't actually ask. And, of course, you're comparing apples and oranges because the US has a much bigger economy and therefore more resources to spend on medical research. It would make more sense to compare medical contributions normalized against GDP or something like that. Of course the bigger, wealthier country is going to have more medical research. You still haven't actually shown that medical advances and treatment in the dozens of single-payer or nationalized health systems is non-existent, as you explicitly claimed. And you still haven't explained why a fixed price removes any profit motivation. Or why for-profit insurance companies actually add value to the system.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 26, 2010 -> 02:44 PM) One of these words doesn't seem to make sense... There's perimeter fences you can bury underground, but I wouldn't call them an "electric" fence.

No, I don't and I didn't say that. I'm asking you to support your claim that single-payer or nationalized health care leads to zero innovation, because so far you haven't. And we have demonstrable evidence to the contrary, because medical research and advancement does come out of those countries and their is still profit motive to provide better services. But, just to throw another wrench into your argument, where does a lot funding for medical research in this country come from, especially basic science? Spoiler alert: NIH! Government Saves! The ridiculous assertion that Britain hasn't made any significant medical contributions since 1945 aside, you still haven't explained why a single-payer system means there's no reason to improve business operations, medical techniques, customer service, medicine, etc. You can capture larger client bases and/ or reduce expenses even if your price is fixed. You can treat more people with new drugs and procedures and better diagnoses. And, of course, the radical idea that some people might become doctors, pharmacists, chemists, biologists, nurses, etc. because they want to help people.

So no medical research or advancement has come out of Britain and other single-payer countries for several decades? Do you really believe that?

Yeah, I figured DLC will continue the story.