StrangeSox

Who says there's not a profit incentive? A fixed price doesn't mean a fixed profit. Has the British NHS (or any other single-payer or national health scheme) been stagnant in terms of medical care for decades? Have they not had any medical advances in the country?

I'm hesitant to attribute it to there being a black democrat Muslim Kenyan usurper in office, because I wouldn't be shocked if there really was a decent amount of Americans who always felt like that.

QUOTE (justBLAZE @ Jun 25, 2010 -> 06:34 PM) Look above the picture. A home run from Gordon will do that to ya. I know man, just giving you s***.

28% of Americans say civilian control of the military is bad. I wonder if it has anything to do with having a democrat in charge or if this is a pretty stable finding.

QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Jun 25, 2010 -> 06:18 PM) eh, there's a difference between being crazy and just being a prick, I wouldn't be shocked if he goes somewhere like the LAD if they can add some payroll and he excels again. But he's always been a head case. It's seems likely that there's something going on there.

You're not guaranteed the same volume of customers no matter what. Doctor A charge $100. Doctor B charges $100. Doctor A is much better than Doctor B, so he gets a hell of a lot more customers. He's also developed more efficient methods, and so his profits are higher and he makes more. Having the price fixed at a certain dollar amount doesn't mean you make the same amount of money no matter what and that competition vanishes.

Who's that jerk?

He needs help. Seriously.

Presumably people would still prefer to go to the better hospital.

DLee can be seen clearly shouting "that's bulls***" at Zambrano in the clip.

Another gem by this team. It's like the season started over again two weeks ago. This whole place is giddy.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 25, 2010 -> 03:48 PM) more money --> better facilities and programs --> easier to attract better doctors and more specialists --> you recieve better and more sophisticated health care. They said profit, not revenue. Expenditures on facilities, programs, doctors, equipment etc. all come out before profit is calculated. So, they could spend even more on those things if they were non-profit. But what about the insurance companies? What innovations are we looking for there with a profit model vs. a completely non-profit model?

Not very far-fetched considering we have a Kenyan Muslim usurper in office now!

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jun 25, 2010 -> 02:58 PM) OHHHHH, yes, the 3% of the population and use 25% of a resource arguement. f*** that, we need to blow ourselves up. Now get off your oily made computer. OHHHHH yes that fact that makes your point wrong, f*** that fact. You are a master logician, kap.

RBI at least

MLB At-Bat had that pitch at least 3 inches off the plate also "The Pulse" for the Cubs is pretty much flat all game. LOL.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jun 25, 2010 -> 04:33 PM) He was an OK last man on the roster. Why not hate daily on this year's last man on the roster, Lilly? Wise did not deserve the booing. Wise was a decent last man on the roster. He had speed and made the best catch you will ever see to save a perfect game. He was a very bad last man on the roster who made a phenomenal catch.

Kotsay=fail

TCQ! TCQ! TCQ! he's back.

We are, by a wide margin, the biggest user.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 25, 2010 -> 12:00 PM) Read your history books and look beyond the fluffy language. They had representation. They had British representatives (keep in mind, colonists were British too...) in the colonies that represented them in Parliament. It was taxes man. People didn't like having to pay for every item they used simply because a government across the pond told them to. But I've said my peace on both topics. I'm not wasting a day and 7 pages arguing over distinctions that IMO don't have relevance to my point. oh ok.

It was over a lack of representation and some sort of say in Parliament. It was about being told to do something and not having a say in their own governance. Tea partiers can't make the same complaint unless they only like democracy when their team wins. And you cannot ignore the legitimacy of the motivation of the movements and pretend that they're equal.

They didn't start a war over tea or over having high tax rates. I think that's something the tea party people miss.

How is forcing someone to go to war and kill people different than forcing people to pay for health care? You really need that explained? "There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious—makes you so sick at heart—that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all." Does that sound more genuine in opposition to restrictions of free speech* or in opposition to paying for poor people to get health care? *edit: wrong cause

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 25, 2010 -> 09:42 AM) Really? You think the problem with Vietnam was the process that got us there, and not the end result? Specifically, you think the problem was that the government was being too aggressive in pushing the war, and not the fact that 60,000 Americans and a couple million Vietnamese died? don't leave out the cambodians.