StrangeSox

I posted an article covering it and the picture from the article. Protest signs leave something to be desired (they're clearly not in marketing/ advertising) but I didn't call them nutty or anything.

Didn't Sosa leave with some bad blood between the Cubs/ Cubs fans? Aside from juicing like mad, what did Sosa really accomplish? What did he win? What records does he hold?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/us/polit...testweb.html?hp

Yeah, that's my opinion to. The field is usually trashed a week or two into the season.

I often wish FJM was still around for moments like these.

No, you won't.

http://shimkus.house.gov/index.html From the Fighting 19th. Large southern district that goes heavily Republican. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois%27s_...sional_district

He just wanted to beat the traffic.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Sep 10, 2009 -> 11:20 PM) People don't go because they are afraid they might actually get stuck for a bill. OH NOES! They have access to doctors now, they just don't want to pay for it. Put them in a government system, now you just paid for it and you just opened up pandora's box. Except that, just like your ZOMG! IT'LL PUT ALL PRIVATE INSURANCE OUT OF BUSINESS!, we have plenty of real world examples we can look at where that just does not happen.

QUOTE (Brian @ Sep 10, 2009 -> 05:40 PM) "Sorority Row" not exactly getting bad reviews. Maybe worth a rental when it comes out. I like awful slasher flicks. It looks straight out of the mid-late 90's.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 10, 2009 -> 03:30 PM) If the government tried to raise taxes by the amount that we pay above what everyone else pays for healthcare, the right would absolutely explode. That'd be like a $10 trillion tax increase over 10 years. Conversely, if we could somehow magically switch to the NHS, that'd be the equivalent of a $12 trillion tax cut over 10 years. Yeah, some pay more than others, but really, let's understand how monstrous the numbers we're talking about here actually are. I can only imagine what sort of commentary would be flying around if democrats were actually advocating a single-payer or NHS-style system.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Sep 10, 2009 -> 03:29 PM) At the same time, there’s a love of people on the right who will vote for Wilson simple because he did this. Also, keep in mind Obama is currently, not the most popular guy amongst independents either. I think it’s pretty much status-quo for that race, with the issue being that ample amounts of money and attention will be paid to both sides. I would think that the people on the right who would vote for Wilson because of this would vote for whoever had the ® over the (D).

He won in a pretty narrow margin, so it could easily push some moderates around.

That's a link to a conservative blog full of OUTRAGE. Where's the AP story?

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Sep 10, 2009 -> 12:57 PM) With insurance you have upfront caps and restrictions, you know what you are getting and not getting from the start. With the powers granted the insurance czar and commissioner, they can change on a whim. Sure you do. They never arbitrarily cancel your policy or deny claims. Private health insurance is a shining beacon of free-market capitalism. The point that you're missing is that if the government regulations had very well-defined limits, caps and restrictions, you'd be b****ing even more about "DEATH PANELS ZOMG!"

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Sep 10, 2009 -> 12:53 PM) In case you missed it twice, I also said "but there will still be a panel of bureaucrats somewhere deciding just what kind of care and how much of it you get. And if they deny you something that could have saved your life, you have a defacto death panel". No matter how you want to try and spin it, there is a group of people somewhere in this system looking at all the healthcare you get, and deciding if you should still get it. There are limits on the amount of drugs you can get because they cost too damn much, or you are too damn old. Because the system has more demand than supply, rationing occurs, decisions are made, and lives are effected. Hey, you just described private health insurance!

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 10, 2009 -> 12:44 PM) Which is fine - how does allowing them to go elsewhere do anything negative? It only adds positives. It allows plans meeting lower standards in other states to undermine the higher-standard plans that meet state regulations. That's the only thing I can think of, but I don't have a problem with it. I'm sort of surprised to see states-rights libertarians and republicans advocating removing individual states' powers to regulate.

Someone might get around this regulation/ law, so we shouldn't pass this regulation/ law!

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Sep 10, 2009 -> 12:38 PM) The end of life counselling sessions are just that, as you say. but there will still be a panel of bureaucrats somewhere deciding just what kind of care and how much of it you get. And if they deny you something that could have saved your life, you have a defacto death panel. Again, you are not focusing on the overall picture, and her true meaning and intent. Must be that R in her party affiliation that prevents that. No, that wasn't her true meaning and intent. Read the actual comment. She was ranting and raving about death panels killing her DS baby, not paying doctors for end of life counseling, which is what the clause everyone got so worked up about actually does. Also, you already have "death panels" in private insurance, if you're going with that loose of a definition.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Sep 10, 2009 -> 12:40 PM) I didn't say it was good hyperbole, but the soundbyte sure stuck around, so I guess it did it's job. Of distorting and obfuscating the issues, sure.

States can't determine regulations for themselves that way. But yeah, the republican response was pretty bad. They really did a poor job of anticipating what he was going to say. Also, humorously, Karl Rove's editorial about the speech was posted before the speech finished.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Sep 10, 2009 -> 10:32 AM) He said "30 million American citizens". In New Hampshire he said, "46 million Americans". One is wrong. Which is it? Neither is necessarily wrong. "Americans" is a loosely-defined term, while citizenship is not. I understand and partially agree with the criticisms of the 46M number; that doesn't mean its a lie.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Sep 10, 2009 -> 10:22 AM) So was he lying to make it seem like a larger problem in New Hampshire? He said something like "30 million uninsured citizens" instead of using the 46M with the more ambiguous "Americans" which includes migrants and aliens (legal and illegal). Where is the lie in this?

He said uninsured citizens this time.

Her health insurance was still canceled because she had health care needs for completely unrelated issues.. That doesn't exactly make the health insurance industry look like less of douchebags.