 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 31-7-2009 23:30, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> I like how someone points out that McCain was born in Panama.
> []
>> If anything, McCain could be considered a better case, since we *do*
>> know he wasn't "physically" even on the same continent, at the time.
>
> On which continent was he then?
Ok, ok... Wasn't thinking. Panama is "technically" North America, but
its a close call. :p
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 14:50:49 -0400, Tim Cook wrote:
> *cough*
You should have that cough checked out, unless your insurance provider
has determined that it's not covered because it's a preexisting
condition. Make sure your doctor is in-network and that you've got your
credit card to cover the co-pay (or more if you haven't met the plan's
minimum out-of-pocket expense per annum). And if you are referred to a
specialist for help with it, your PCP doesn't know if the specialist is
in-network or not for you, so make sure you check before you make the
appointment, otherwise you have to pay the specialist completely out of
pocket. ;-)
(Yes, I believe I've correctly recognised your sarcasm. ;-) )
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 08/02/09 11:48, Chambers wrote:
>> (I have to disagree, though, as I think he was a deluded warmonger, and
>
> He may have been a warmongerer, and a lot more stuff unfit to print,
> but I seriously doubt he was delusional.
Not delusional, but deluded. From what I've seen, I think he wanted the
war in Iraq badly enough that two things happened:
1) His own view of the available data was biased,
2) His staff, knowing what he wanted, either consciously or
unconsciously colored the information they gave him.
Combined, I'm sure that he was convinced he was doing the right thing.
I'm also certain that he's much more intelligent than people give him
credit for, and that if he'd had access to better (read: less biased)
information, he would have made more intelligent choices. He was still
biased himself, so he wouldn't be perfect, but he would have done a lot
better.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> (I have to disagree, though, as I think he was a deluded warmonger, and
> lots of people could have done better. Not Gore, but I'd probably even
> vote for Hillary over Bush if there were another election.)
>
You sure about that one?
http://www.alternet.org/rights/87665/?page=entire
"Two ways third gender works in the Family: There are these very strong
wives who oftentimes are very strong-willed people. I'm just reading
Hillary Clinton, who's just a man as far as they're concerned.
Lindsay Beyerstein: What's Hillary's involvement with the Family? What
is she getting out of it?
Jeff Sharlet: As I was researching the book, I knew Hillary had this
strange connection. I didn't think much of it until I was reporting on
Sen. Sam Brownback. Everyone knew I was a reporter from "Rolling Stone,"
probably more liberal than they were. So, a way that a lot of Family
people would reach out to be friendly was to tell me that Hillary
Clinton was OK with them. They'd tell me that HRC was going for regular
spiritual counseling with Doug Coe.
Lindsay Beyerstein: Is she still getting counseling from him?
Jeff Sharlet: This was in 2005, and she refused to say anything about
this. When NBC questioned her about this, her only answer was that
(she's) not a member and (she) has never given Doug Coe money -- which
was a strangely parsed kind of answer."
So... Not necessarily a member of the neo-almost-fascist elite, but
willing to listen to them for advice, even while Bill was President,
according to an earlier bit...
BTW, the three congress critters recently in trouble over adultery, one
went to these people for help, when caught, the other two are members,
and live, tax free, in what is classed as a church, in Washington DC.
Their philosophy seems to be a) divine right to rule, since its god that
*gives* people such power, and b) Christianity has been screwed up for
the last 2,000 years, by trying to help poor people, instead of bringing
about a world worthy of Christ's return.
Yeah.. Really love the idea of voting for Hillery, given her
connections. But, it does make me wonder, given the politics and
background of the people around Bush *and* their idea of how to solve
some foreign policy issues (including continuing to support dictators
and work with places like Sandia Arabia), whether or not digging in
Bush's connections would land him with these people too.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> (Yes, I believe I've correctly recognised your sarcasm. ;-) )
*Spock-like* Indeed.
I don't have insurance, the only doctor bills I've paid since moving to
Florida have been dentist, and those were out-of-pocket
(metaphorically). ^_^
Side-note, it's really impressive how much dental medicine has advanced
over the years, even since when I was a wee lad ('course, the first
dentist I had growing up used equipment from the '60s, and when he
retired the new dentist had significantly more modern gear, but when I
moved to FL, the dentist I ended up going to has pretty much the latest
and greatest, so I was impressed)
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/02/09 12:47, Darren New wrote:
> John VanSickle wrote:
>> The anti-Bush people said the same about Bush and his policies, as well.
>
> I think one difference is that something like 70%-80% of the people
> approve of (some of) Obama's policies, while 70%-80% disapproved of
> Bush's policies. The Obama policies that most people disapprove of are
Somewhat disagree. A lot of that 70-80% disagreement with Bush was
towards the end. If you look at, say, Iraq war support it was mostly in
the 40-60% range.
There may have been some policies that the country was 70-80% in
disagreement with, but then you'd get the same "some" disclaimer that
you put with Obama.
--
Kotter: "Have you ever considered becoming a vet?"
Epstein: "Uh...Uh no. My brother Sanchez was in the army. Didn't like it
a bit."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> The Obama policies that most people disapprove of are
> the ones where he's doing the same thing as Bush.
What, you mean like members of the military who claim Obama doesn't have
the right to be Commander in Chief, so they try not to get deployed?
Never mind the fact that Bush is the reason we're in the Middle East to
begin with...
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 15:17:49 -0400, Tim Cook wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> (Yes, I believe I've correctly recognised your sarcasm. ;-) )
>
> *Spock-like* Indeed.
>
> I don't have insurance, the only doctor bills I've paid since moving to
> Florida have been dentist, and those were out-of-pocket
> (metaphorically). ^_^
>
> Side-note, it's really impressive how much dental medicine has advanced
> over the years, even since when I was a wee lad ('course, the first
> dentist I had growing up used equipment from the '60s, and when he
> retired the new dentist had significantly more modern gear, but when I
> moved to FL, the dentist I ended up going to has pretty much the latest
> and greatest, so I was impressed)
It's funny you mention that, because the situation I sorta described in
my reply two above is one I've run into - my main dentist referred me to
a periodontist for cleaning because my gums were in really bad shape.
I've been to the periodontist 4 times and had to pay it all out of
pocket. Why? Because my plan doesn't cover periodontal care unless I've
had periodontal *surgery* first. In other words, I have to have let my
gums get *so* bad that it required surgery (which they would cover), and
then they'd also let the periodontist do my cleanings.
Of course my regular dentist didn't know that Aetna had this precondition
on getting periodontal care. I've spent the better part of a year
fighting with them about whether or not it should be covered, and it's
like talking to a brick wall. The specialists at Aetna seem to think
that it'd be better for me to have things deteriorate further before they
should have to pay out for coverage. Never mind the fact that the
cleanings are $114 each visit and surgery would cost a LOT more than
that, so they'd end up paying out more if I did have surgery.
And some people think this is the best system in the world.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/02/09 13:50, Tim Cook wrote:
> public teat, and prevent us from our God-given constitutional right to
> bear arms as a metaphor for freedom, despite the fact that we haven't
> had a ground-force invasion of American soil in a very long time,
> certainly not within living memory. Well, there's those illegal
The right to bear arms is meant for both internal and external
purposes. It's not just about foreign invasions.
--
Kotter: "Have you ever considered becoming a vet?"
Epstein: "Uh...Uh no. My brother Sanchez was in the army. Didn't like it
a bit."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/02/09 13:29, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Arguably, many of these same people are the ones who proudly proclaim
> that America has the "best health care system in the world", despite the
> cost of health care here being the *highest* in the world, the system
> itself being ranked something like 50th in the world, and the average
> life span being something like 37th in the world.
1. Cost of health care being high doesn't negate it being the best.
2. To be fair, it all depends on what ranking you look at. Not all place
the US that low. The usual ranking people invoke is the WHO, which puts
it just a bit below 30th - nowhere near 50th.
3. Most of the people I hear from who are against universal health care
don't claim the US is near the "best". They claim that people who "work
hard and earn a lot" should get some sort of priority over deadbeats who
don't. (Not my view, but thought I'd point out that it's not about being
the best). Effectively, the argument is that access to health care is
not a human right (although they'll never put it in those terms).
4. To be fair, among industrialized countries, the US _does_ rank near
the top for the treatment of certain conditions (e.g. certain cancers,
etc). I don't know if they include people who just don't get care
because they can't afford it. To be even fairer, the same study shows
that the US is worse and in some cases really bad for a number of other
common serious ailments.
I haven't deeply looked at Obama's plan. I don't know if it's
particularly good. It's not what most advocates of universal health care
want. I don't know of any country that actually uses his plan as a
model. The countries that do come close (Switzerland?) and have a system
of private insurance actually enforce limits on the amount of profit
insurance companies make. That doesn't seem to be in his plan.
I think what a lot of UHC advocates have to understand is that just
because it's government run doesn't mean it will work at all well. There
are a lot of issues and concerns that simply are not being addressed.
It's a long article, but you should read:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all
It's purely discussing government run care, and how in some cases it
can be really abused, without the guilty party even consciously _trying_
to abuse it. If they don't address this kind of stuff, UHC won't work
that well.
--
Kotter: "Have you ever considered becoming a vet?"
Epstein: "Uh...Uh no. My brother Sanchez was in the army. Didn't like it
a bit."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
