knives out got the cobra clutch, well put

They wont lower costs. They will end up delaying / cutting services.

Since when does the Goverment make efficent decisions?
Have you been served quickly at the DMV, Welfare office, Employment office or the County health department?

Katerina victims are still waiting for assistance to rebuild their homes.
The Cash for clunkers Where is that money? The people are waiting.

Government does not know how to be efficient or thrifty.

Just today I had to spent $7800 on a custom PC just to replace a$7.00 cable in side it. If I went to Radio shack and bought the cable I would be non compliant and would loose my job. And yes I DO work in Healthcare. I know that the local purchased cable would be just fine. That cost got past directly to the Hospital. But the Government made rules.

How can they serve the peoples needs? They don't know what you need you know what you need. You know what works for you. The decision needs to be yours.

What the goverment can do is:
legislate laws that allow competition across state lines.
Don't drop people when they are deadly sick and need it most.
Cap premiums on those who really need insurance ( preexisting conditions etc) to not more than 10% .
Allow those who get denied treatment the ability to challenge to a independent group that can over rule the insurance companies.
Pick up the COBRA payment when your job is lost.

I'd be surprised if you can even get such a policy here, nanrod. Every policy I've ever seen has all of those conditions.

Just to toss out an example, I have what I consider to be a pretty good insurance package for my wife and myself. Small copays at the doctor's office and decent pharmacy copays. Now, this was not an individual policy, but rather a policy I got from my last employer that I carried over on my own when I was laid off (thanks to a federal provision called COBRA, we do have that right). The cost for our coverage was approximately $700 per MONTH, although the stimulus package picked up some part of insurance coverage via COBRA for a while, which brings it down to $460.

When I was working, my employer paid for this, so getting laid off was a double-whammy...not only did I lose my income, but my cost of living skyrocketed. Which may have something to do with my exceedingly sour attitude of late. Watching any hope I had of ever retiring melt away isn't making me happy with the jackasses who try to tell me just how great our health care is, nor the assholes who destroyed our economy for their own profit.

Found your link missing alot of....facts. And lacking the qualities that would make it a good journalistic article. Now, if it was trying to induce fear, misrepentsation of facts, and to make sh*t up....it succeed by leaps and bounds. I will not pester the whole sift on this article, quantum. When making an arguement to defend your 'position' (if you can call it that), dont go to goggle.com and type in 'Mass Health coverage fail'.

"...first state in the nation to require that all of its residents purchase health insurance."

Yes, it is the first state that requires residents to HAVE health insurance, NOT, purchase it. If you have health insurance through an employer (if you had nine or more coworkers; if it was less, you could get a plan for that too), that is acceptable. If you have health insurance through a spouse on their plan, that too, is acceptable. If you have health insurance due to circumstances (i.e. military, goverment, contract payment, etc) that is acceptable. And for those who are unemployed and their COBRA (thank you Ted Kennedy!) has run out, can get Mass Health.

"Yet two years after its inception, the Massachusetts plan has failed to achieve either of its goals. The plan did not lower health care costs, nor did it achieve universal coverage."

Oh yeah, cus Mr. Bush's Iraq went so perfectly and under budget too. What did he say? "Mission Accomlished" after six months as $600 million? Try six years and $3 trillion price tag. At least the money being spent on health care in Massachusetts goes towards a good cause: better health care for her residents. The plan itself will take work, tinkering to make it more useful. On the topic of achieving universal coverage, is actually ccrrect. 97-97% of the population of MA has health insurance right now. The remainer have opt'ed out of it, and paid their bill on their income tax forms for MA. So, if those people arrive at the ER and cant pay for their problems....well, they'll have no one to blame but themselves for their own foolishness.

If Videosift.com allowed more space to type, I'd tear that link of yours to peices, quantum. Simpler to say, your 'source' of 'information' is riddled with inaccuracies, and ladden with fear of the concept. In essence, its a poor journalistic essay on the topic, and a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

Nice to know that Storm Shadow had something to fall back on when Cobra fell...

My dad (VN cobra pilot) wonders if they draw combat pay. They may not be risking their lives, but they certainly are conscious of the fact they are blowing people to smithereens.

>> ^blankfist:
Most socialized health care supporters focus on the "treatment argument" instead of the real debate of corporate collusion and government regulations stifling a free market approach. In a free market there will still be costs associated with "treatment", but it would be significantly less than what we have.

I think you're confusing health insurance, and health providers. Not even single payer would change the picture for providers directly. Providers have to compete with one another today.

The exchanges allow for the creation of a national market for individual insurance, with direct competition between insurers. The public option is also in the exchange.

The weak part of the plan? You're not allowed to use it if your employer offers insurance. You are however allowed to use it instead of COBRA if you lose your job.

Currently, I believe it costs somewhere between $10,000 to $15,000 a month for Chemotherapy (probably more, maybe less). Chemotherapy is a very common outpatient procedure. There is no reason for it to cost as much, and if the market was opened without government disallowing competition via regulation so much more health options would become available, and I'm sure this procedure would be fairly inexpensive.

Who's the monopoly provider for chemotherapy?

Have you ever wondered why the Pharmaceutical companies export the same medication they sell us for much, much less? That's because they have to compete in foreign markets. Did you know no Pharmaceuticals can be allowed into the US for treatment except if accepted by the FDA? What does that translate to mean? It means, the same medication you are currently buying at restrictive prices could be sold be imported into this country for much, much less... and I mean, the exact same medication.

It's also because other countries are having the government negotiate prices.

But hooray, you actually found one of the things I think is weak in the bill. The ban on imported drugs stays in place, but price negotiation would be allowed for Medicare Part D.

That's kinda weak.

Full list from the funnyordie website:

Laz Alonso as Doc
Alexis Bledel as Lady Jaye
Billy Crudup as Zartan
Zach Galifiankais as Snow Job
Tony Hale as Dr. Mindbender
Vinnie Jones as Destro
Joey Kern as Tomax
Joey Kern as Xamot
Chuck Liddell as Gung Ho
Julianne Moore as Scarlett
Henry Rollins as Duke
Alan Tudyk as Shipwreck
Olivia Wilde as The Baroness
and
Sgt. Slaughter as Himself
Also featuring Jamin Fite as Cobra Commander
Frankie Kang as Storm Shadow
Geoff Mann as Buzzer
Andreas Owald as Snake Eyes
Daniel Strange as Torch
Kevin Umbricht as Ripper

Also, LOL at the mouse cursor over GI:JOE headquarters =P

Cobra looked great.

SpaceOddity, you're not alone.

This is absurd. When he refers to Hollywood divorcing Americanness from the military, he's not talking about all militaries, Skeeve. He's talking about the U.S. military, and he's right. G.I. Joe cartoons capitalized on the awesomeness of the U.S. military. My memories of the show are a jumble of corny lines, explosions, big weapons, and cool military technology. What he's saying is that G.I. Joe got popular among little American boys because it was about how awesome OUR military is, and this movie takes that popularity and exploits it, removing the patriotic U.S. military core of the entire franchise. Cobra was a terrorist organization bent on world domination. Can you imagine these filmmakers producing a movie about American heroes fighting terrorists? No, no, no, we can't have that.

I'm rambling again. What I want to say is that it's absolutely preposterous to make G.I. Joe some kind of international organization. They wanted to use the G.I. Joe name for its dollar value, but then they decided to get all apologetic about the Americanness of it. (Hm...apologizing for America. Of whom am I reminded?) In case you've forgotten, these characters were American men and women of diverse ethnicities who gave good advice to kids.

P.S. Your narrow-minded "America sucks" attitude is incredibly immature, ignorant, and trendy.

I'm not offended by the "international" G.I. Joe, as the whole thing is ridiculous and that's what it's meant to be: ridiculous, popcorn fun.

It would be equally ridiculous to make a film "true" to the cartoon. One Joe is an American Indian who goes into battle with an eagle on his arm while the lone sailor has a parrot: that makes not one but TWO Joes armed with birds. The Cobra guy in the tank must be trembling, he's only got the one uniform and as soon as he throws open the hatch you just know he's going to get hit with TWO kinds of bird poop.

Then there's the Asian Joe, who shall remain nameless, who charges into battle while shoeless, wearing only gi pants and a bandolier of exactly three shuriken...

------------

I don't know why libsifters keep posting FOX clips. It makes as much sense as ordering food you know you already hate in order to complain that it's not cooked perfectly.

rychan wrote:
It's worse because she can't fight back and can't defend herself.

What you are describing is more the difference between "cowardly" and "brave" rather than "right" and "wrong." It is certainly more cowardly to attack a defenseless person, but its also kind of "intelligent" or "strategic" isn't it?

If you consider the meaning of the words more closely, defenseless doesn't just mean "having no defense" it means "not having enough defense (for the attack at hand)." Thus, anyone who cannot successfully repel an attack is defenseless, and this it true of any fight all the way up to a high level such as MMA. Nobody has ever won a fight against someone who wasn't defenseless.

What you really mean to say is that her defense is pale in comparison to his attack, thus making him a coward for choosing such an lopsided opponent.

In terms of right and wrong, when you COBRA-KAI LEG SWEEP someone, their response determines their morality, not yours. It doesn't in any way excuse your behavior if they retaliate; nor does it condemn your behavior if they are unable or unwilling to retaliate. As such, the victim's response cannot affect the level of "wrongness" or "immorality" of your action. It makes you appear like more of a dick, sure, but thats a different word.

Before I get into a more serious commentary, I just want to point out that blankfist, supposed proponent of Austrian economics, upvoted this comment:

>> ^deedub81:
More about the Merril Lynch investment bankers I met with today:
In short, they felt that we don't need to worry too much about inflation unless a few more things go wrong. As things stand, we shouldn't worry. Because of all the debt that is being absorbed and written off through the bailouts and the slack that has been created in the economy due to the trend toward smaller leveraging raitos, the amount of money that the government is creating is balanced out.

Which leads me to wonder, blankfist, why are you now upvoting someone who's using Keynesian theory to say inflation won't be a problem? You're supposed to declare that the Fed, and everything the government does leads to inevitable ruin!

>> ^deedub81:
I just spent the last 3 hours (I just walked in the door) with Merril Lynch associates and had the whole economic mess explained to me in great detail. I think I get it pretty well now. I'm all good with the whole AIG bailout. I'm clear that the government's hands were pretty well tied there. I'm all for re-instating some of the restrictions that were loosened in the 90's and in 2004.

This is good news. I'm not sure why you believe it when it comes out of Merrill's mouth, since it's government action that stands to directly benefit them, and not the governments' when it said the exact same thing, but I'll try not to look the gift horse of common ground in the mouth.

(I would quibble slightly about the necessity of bailing out AIG vs. bailing out their counterparties, but it's water under the bridge now)

I'm not so sure about bailing out GM, Cap and Trade, Health Care (horrible timing is just one reason), and no help for the small businesses.

I'm not so sure about GM either, but really the "bailout" is just government providing credit for them to go into Chapter 11, rather than having them be forced into Chapter 7. When you look at it that way, it makes a lot more sense. Fewer people lose their jobs, and lots of small businesses that supply/support the auto industry's infrastructure get to keep their businesses as well.

Health care is probably worthy of it's own full-length discussion thread, but here's the short version of why I think it's desperately necessary, and the timing is perfect for it. We pay more per capita for healthcare in this country than any other. However, our healthcare outcomes rank somewhere down below mid-pack for industrialized nations. In countries with a more intrusive government plan for healthcare, people never go bankrupt for the care they receive, and never have an incentive to avoid getting treatment or preventive care. There are lots of different systems out there, and all of them combine government and private programs in varying degrees (including ours). Most of what's different in other countries is that they have made explicit changes to try to keep a lid on costs, and to remove perverse incentives from the system (such as a profit motive for denying care).

The key pillars of the Democratic proposals are a) an employer mandate to provide insurance (small business excluded), b) laws against denying insurance coverage, c) a public option, where essentially the government sells medicare to people under 65. I bolded the word sells, because it will not be taxpayer subsidized. There would be a separate subsidy for people with low incomes, but they are free to purchase a private plan with the subsidy if they so choose.

This is already longer than I wanted, but lastly the reason why it's important now is because if we don't do anything, the costs will just continue to increase, and more and more people will lose their coverage as their employers drop their plans. Also, we have a huge number of people who've lost their jobs, and are unlikely to be able to afford COBRA payments for very long. There's also the problem with medicare and medicaid -- if costs keep rising like they are, we're headed for a huge set of tax increases in the future, or a huge cut in benefits (and no one will want either). If we fix the cost problem, we may have fixed our long-range deficit issues. There's also the matter of Democrats having the House, 60 votes in the Senate, and the White House, and who knows when there will be a better chance to finally get this done.

Cap and trade I'm worried about the timing on. The plan as it is now is very weak though, and most of the carbon "credits" are being given away for free. CBO says the current plan will cost people an average of $175/yr over the next 10 years. That's about the price of mailing a letter a day. In return it will reduce emissions by 20% by 2021. There's a bit of progressive wealth distribution going on in terms of who pays for it, the bottom 20% income group will receive a tax credit which should actually more than offset the costs of the cap.

As for small business, the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act (the cap & trade bill), yours may not get special treatment, but there will be subsidies offered to businesses who will work on clean energy technology (e.g. carbon offsets, wind, solar, battery tech, etc.).

Personally, I think it's a shame we didn't put that in place 30 years ago, and I don't think we can put it off any longer, but the timing will definitely work against it.

Large corporations use auctions and corporate bonds to increase liquid assets, small businesses use credit card and bank loans. Because of the bailouts, large corporations and banks are starting to thaw and we're seeing movement and lending between banks. What we don't see is increased loans and cash flow to the lifeblood of America: small businesses.

Why do you think we aren't seeing that happen?

How can you not see how terrible Obama's timing is? How can he promise that he won't raise taxes on people who make under $250,000/year with all of the government expansion that he's heading up? How can you not see that congress is out of control?

I've already given my answer on timing, and the "out of control" bit too. The problem with the accusation of "expansion of government" coupled with concern about taxes is a bit misplaced. The goal with healthcare is to make it revenue neutral, and stave off large future expansions. Ditto for Cap and trade. We'll see if Obama can keep his tax promise, but remember, us under $250k people have had our taxes go down so far under Obama.

Knowing how this goes, Obama will almost certainly be accused of breaking that promise by 2012 (The "OMG, he raised taxes on cigarettes!!!" is already making the rounds), but I suspect that he's going to bend over backwards to keep it.

I feel like we've got a bunch of ignoramuses and corrupt punks running the show. They act in behalf of the highest bidder. They cheat on their wives, they cheat on their taxes, they lie through their teeth, and they're stealing food right off of my family's table!

So find better politicians and get 'em elected. In the meantime I would suggest that Republicans have Democrats beat on ignorance, corruption, influence peddling, cheating on wives, cheating on taxes, lies, and theft (from us and other nations).

What you didn't like the masturbating animals? That was the best part.

Oh and the cobra most definitely had his teeth removed, it makes snake charming a lot less dangerous you see.

I don't know about Cobra being the real good guys, but the GI Joe response was pretty worrying. Instead of diffusing the bomb he attached it to the flying aircraft carrier ... which was floating over the city.

Counter-terrorist isn't supposed to mean you're a terrorist for the other side.

I liked it though