Idaho Will Sue

[MSimon]

Slavery means uncompesated forced labor.

What we are debating here is the amount of slavery: 40%? 60%? 80%?

Such slavery is how you perpetuate an aristocracy. i.e. prevent the accumulation of capital. In America we don't like aristocrats. At all. But we tolerate them if there is sufficient opportunity for upward mobility. You destroy that and there will be blood in the streets.

[Skipjack]

Slavery means uncompesated forced labor.

Slavery (also called thralldom) is a form of forced labour in which people are considered to be the property of others. Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to demand wages.

Low compensation is not no compensation. Also, noone forces anybody to work. Also, people can always leave. They can move into another country. Last time I checked noone in the US, not even in Austria was anybodies property. Therefore you are clearly exaggerating the situation and not by a little.

Two doctors and 10,000 casualties. A very good thing. Because more work is always good.

What are you talking about?

A two week deadline for 100,000 lines of aerospace code: But I have a deal for you: you fly first.

Again, what are you talking about?

Or how about we exactly match the number of doctors to the average patient load. Queueing theory says the lines get infinite. Of course with humans we will have some luck. Some will die before they can be accommodated. Reducing waits and costs.

I have said it before, I will say it again. We have NO waiting times. Yes, the Brits have horrible waiting times. Their system is considered among the worst in the world. But then again, why would I orient myself after the worst? There are public healthcare systems that are much better. Again, Austria is much better. It is among the best in the world. The cost is comparably high, but it is still way lower than in the US.
So please stop shouting arround your horror scenarios. It is like judgeing the savety of nuclear energy by Tschernobyl and 3 mile island.
Your argumentation is populistic. You are trying to scare people into following your agenda. This is a very effective method in politics. But smarter people will not fall for it. In fact it is usually very easy to uncover.

[ladajo]

I beg to differ on the reference to Cherynobol and TMI-2.
This is a clear example of the effectiveness of safety in Nuclear Power.

The russians had a very unsafe design and paid for it dearly.
TMI-2 clearly represented that proper safety design prevents catastrophic accidents. The core completely slagged, yet did not breach the containment vessel. I saw it.

[Skipjack]

TMI-2 clearly represented that proper safety design prevents catastrophic accidents. The core completely slagged, yet did not breach the containment vessel. I saw it.

Yeah, but it is still one of the worse incidents that get constantly quoted by opponents of nuclear power. Again, I think it is unfair to judge everything by these two incidents.
But anyway, in order to avoid side controversy about my argumentation, I will refrase it to:
It is like judgeing the savety of nuclear energy by Tschernobyl period
Happy?

[ladajo]

Yes, the russians had a VERY bad design, and go figure, it went bad.
And I agree, TMI-2 was a success from inside the american industry, but an incredible failure from the eyes of the general (un-educated) public and media. Although, for the industry side we did learn a valuable lesson: "Believe your indications."

[Diogenes]

The American Civil War was not Lincoln's Responsibility. Had the South avoided firing the first shot it might have all passed without incident.

Sure, and had Lincoln simply ordered the troops to evacuate Fort Sumter, it would have passed without incident. It was the letter he sent to the Confederates that initiated the shots being fired, and it was exactly what he was counting on.

Lincoln was no idiot. He knew full well that he could use Ft. Sumter as a bone of contention, and thereby create an excuse to intervene in an event he was heretofore powerless to stop. An embarrassing and humiliating event.

Lincoln gave orders that Union Troops were not to initiate hostilities.

He likewise informed the garrison at Ft. Sumter that it would shortly be attacked, and to take all steps necessary to prevent loss of life, wait one day, then surrender the Ft.

Things might have passed for a few years with both sides glaring at each other and then the storm might have blown over. Maybe.

But anger was high on both sides. And the future of agricultural mechanization was only a glimmer.

Not true. The Northern states had no animosity towards the Southern states. Northern Newspaper editors editorialized "Go in peace..." comments. It wasn't until the firing on Ft. Sumter that anger materialized from the North, but none knew at the time of Lincolns deliberate provocation.

If anyone is to blame it is Jefferson. He put ideas in men's heads.

And Religion. The Republican Party was founded in Ripon Wisconsin by a bunch of Abolitionist religious nuts along the lines of John Brown. They were against slavery because it was evil. Their modern counterparts are the Anti-Abortion forces of today. (Seriously, the same abolitionists campaigned to outlaw abortion nationwide, after slavery had been vanquished. )

[Diogenes]

1. Doctors will have to work harder.

There will be more people with health insurance that means more clients. That means more work. I dont think that this is a bad thing. More work is always good.

It is my preference to do less work. Not more. Especially work for the benefit of freeloaders. So you are in essence admitting that point number 1. is true. Doctors will have to work harder.

2. Doctors will receive less money.

US doctors are overpaid as it is. If there were less lawsuits they would need even less pay. Still, overpaid.

Two points.

1.The statement was that "Doctors will receive less money. " Not whether or not that was a good thing. Apparently you acknowledge this point.

2. Nothing in the health care bill is going to result in fewer lawsuits.

Nevertheless, I dont get where the idea that they will have to work for less money comes from. Explain!

Making them do more work without paying them for the extra work is exactly the same thing.

3. Doctors will have to treat free loaders.

There are less of those than you might think and they are already benefitting from the current system that you have in the US (like it or not).

Current law requires Medical personnel to render life saving care upon being presented with someone who needs it. Usually this occurs in a hospital emergency room, so it doesn't affect most doctors. The new health care bill will require Doctors to render care in situations where their is no life threatening necessity. They won't be able to throw the freeloading bums out of their office the way they can now.

In any case, you have admitted that point # 3." Doctros will have to treat free loaders." is essentially correct.

You have now admitted that all three points I mentioned are essentially correct, and therefore admitted that it is NOT disinformation, but is entirely true.

With the new system people that are working hard, but for some reason still can not get health insurance, will be able to get insurance. They will be new customers for doctors. More customers can not be bad...

More non paying customers is exactly bad. Apart from that, America's problem with the Health care system was NOT availability. It was cost, And the Democrats did exactly NOTHING to improve that.

Not the older ones. Just the younger more inexperienced one's.

Noone will give up a well paid job that they studied for for quite some time, because they are upset about a new law, that to the best of my believe wont have any affect (or a minimal) on their salaries. If anything it will reduce the danger of getting involved in a lawsuit, because a client cant pay his medical bills. Trust me they wont, or my dad would have quit his a loooong time ago. For your notice: He is old by now too...

They are saying they will. Regardless, why should we want to force them to do anything they don't want to do?

And they are part of the Anglo-sphere. What makes you think this part of the Anglo-sphere is going to do better than Canada or Britain? Our idiots are just as stupid as their idiots!

And you think that our idiots are less stupid than yours?

Actually, yes.

Geee, we even import new idiots from certain countries in masses. The system is still working and is still stable. I dont think it is the idiots in the system that make or break it, but the idiots running it.

The Titanic stayed afloat for hours after taking on water. I dare say you may see your system slowly scuttled by the inflow of new idiots.

The lawyers who do the suing, or as Paul Harvey used to refer to them, the "Sewers" are pretty much all Democrats.

And the lawyers that are sueing for Idaho are what kind of lawyers?
I think sewers is a pretty good word though. Gotta remember that one

They are State Attorney Generals. They are responsible for representing the legal interests of a State, and they are elected officials.

Lincoln is the only Republican President responsible for a catastrophe on the same scale as the Democrats.

Which shows that reps are not infallable too.

He was the First Republican President, and arguably the one that screwed up the worst of them all. Nothing any subsequent Republican President has done approaches anything like the scale of the Civil War.

But then, you know, slavery is not a great thing, is it?

Slavery is a horrible thing, rightly destroyed. It is a shame that we cannot get people to stop attempting to revive it under other guises.

I mean you are already sharpening your weapons about what you are calling "slavery for taxes" here. This clearly demonstrates that you have no idea what slavery really means. I guess you are one of those missing the "good ol' days in the south"...

My Grandfather on my Fathers side was born in Denmark in 1889.
My Grandfather on my Mothers side was born in Indian Territory, and was half Comanche Indian.
None of my family owned slaves, or profited from it. You mistake my horror at the cost of the Civil war for approval of Slavery. It is not.

Slavery needed to be eradicated then, and it needs to be eradicated now. It is quite likely that it could have been accomplished back then without killing 620,000 people and destroying established law and wrecking a huge section of the country economically.

Unfortunately, that didn't happen.

[MSimon]

Yes, the russians had a VERY bad design, and go figure, it went bad.
And I agree, TMI-2 was a success from inside the american industry, but an incredible failure from the eyes of the general (un-educated) public and media. Although, for the industry side we did learn a valuable lesson: "Believe your indications."

I commented on that when it was fresh (Popular Science printed my comment) and I believe the indications were wrong. The indicator showed the core filling up from emergency cooling water when what was actually happening was the water in the "pipes" feeding the DP gauge was boiling due to loss of pressure giving an incorrect indication. So the operator turned off emergency cooling when he should have left it on.

I noted in my Pop Sci comment that we were taught that in Nuke School. And why was the operator improperly trained?

Come to learn later that the guy was a Naval Nuke. Since it happened on a Mid shift I'm going to assume insufficient "boiler compound". Or he slept through that part of his training and was never re-examined on the subject.

I dunno the LOCA is supposed to be the most intensive part of emergency procedure training. Some one besides the operator screwed up if that wasn't drilled into him.

[MSimon]

Not true. The Northern states had no animosity towards the Southern states. Northern Newspaper editors editorialized "Go in peace..." comments. It wasn't until the firing on Ft. Sumter that anger materialized from the North, but none knew at the time of Lincolns deliberate provocation.

So you are saying the Southerners were stupid for rising to the bait?

I think in fact that it was some hot heads in the South who initiated the firing. (You will correct me if I'm in error) So the war may have been a mistake.

My area of Illinois has quite a few small cemeteries filled with Civil War dead. One in a corner of the property of the aerospace plant I worked at. I liked hanging out there. But it was not a generally popular place.

And the Lincoln Douglas debates are re-enacted every year in Freeport. I went to one of them. Took the kids when they were young.

Also we used to like to visit Galena. You can FEEL Grant in the air. The town blacksmith took a liking to me and gave me a smithed Estes rocket firing platform. My kids were into model rockets at the time.

[Skipjack]

It is my preference to do less work. Not more. Especially work for the benefit of freeloaders. So you are in essence admitting that point number 1. is true. Doctors will have to work harder.

Not necessarily. Who says that there wont be more doctors if there is more work available for them? My statement regarding the cost of MDs in the US was a general statement, not an acknowledgement.
Further, how hard you work does not only depend on the quantity, but also on the quality. If you have to stand in an operating room for 8 hours a day, that is a lot harder work than sitting in an office doing routine checkups.
In the US, people dont get as many routine checkups as they are doing here, because they can not afford it. This results in more emergency treatment situations (which are indeed great in the US). Emergency treatment is not only harder work, it is also more expensive. Prescribing a diet and some pills costs much less than a treatment for accute kidney failure.
This is why our government happily pays for peoples routine checkups. They even invest a lot of money into promoting people to go get their checkups.
"Go get your prostate checked frequently after the age of 35". "Go get your bloodwork done once a year". "Go get your vaccinations". Preventive, preventive, preventive.
But explain to someone in the US, who has to pay for all this out of his own pocket, why he should go spend his own money on a doctor that (he thinks) he does not need! It is futile.
Here it does not cost you anything. So people go.
Our government takes this even further. They pay for (not cheap) rehabilitation after, say a heart attack. Why? because it signifficantly reduces the risk of a readmission of the patient. An emergency treatment for a heart attack with at least 4 days of intensive care and about two more weeks of stationary treatment plus expensive medication costs much, much more than those 4 weeks of rehab do.
But, if you have to pay for this out of your own pocket, who will go to rehab?

Making them do more work without paying them for the extra work is exactly the same thing.

Who said that this would be the case?
They will always get paid by the health insurance now. They probably have a higher likelyhood of getting paid too. Isnt it so that some doctors and hospitals in the US wont even treat someone without insurance (or a certain insurance) due to the risk of them never getting their money?
There will also be less disputes about costs, etc.
When everybody has insurance they will definitely always get their money. To me this sounds like a desireable condition.

Current law requires Medical personnel to render life saving care upon being presented with someone who needs it. Usually this occurs in a hospital emergency room, so it doesn't affect most doctors.

I consider freeloaders to be those that are unemployed and get their healthcare bills paid by medicaid. Medicaid (like it or not) has been arround for a while. Maybe your understanding of freeloaders differs from mine.
In case of emergency room treatments the new system will actually be beneficial. With everybody having health insurance, they wont have to worry about not getting their money when doing emergency treatments.
Plus, as I mentioned the amount of emergency treatments should decline. Again it looks more beneficial to me than anything.

They won't be able to throw the freeloading bums out of their office the way they can now.

Well, I think that it would be foolish for any medical doctor to not treat someone who is a paying customer. The current freeloaders mostly have medicaid already. So they are paying. They are just not working in order to pay for the medicaid that pays their doctors cost.
Personally I dont like this, but that is already the law and has been the law for a while.
The current reform will give those that are working, but still can not have health insurance for one reason of the other, a chance to get it. Examples are people that are working 10, 12 hours a day in multiple part time jobs. Since they are only part time, they are not eligible for the more affordable health care packages in many companies and if they are working in low pay jobs like say a cashier at a supermarket, they wont be able to afford health insurance on their own, even with multiple jobs.
Another example are people with preexisting conditions. They too will now have health insurance. These people in particular need preventive routine checkups. These are low cost and they will result in a lot less expensive emergency treatments that noone has paid for until now anyway.

More non paying customers is exactly bad.

With everybody having insurance, they will have more PAYING customers, not less.

It was cost, And the Democrats did exactly NOTHING to improve that.

Covered by a lot of what I said above.

They are saying they will.

SOME are saying they will (for whatever political reason). How many actually have?

The Titanic stayed afloat for hours after taking on water. I dare say you may see your system slowly scuttled by the inflow of new idiots.

Our system has been afloat for a long time. The cost has barely changed over the last 30 years. So again, this argument is invalid.

[Diogenes]

Just ran across this. It addresses an obvious point. If this healthcare bill is so good, why did Congressional staffers


exempt themselves from the requirements?





For those of you who are unfamiliar with the reference, it is from George Orwell's "Animal Farm" which is a thinly veiled description of what happens when socialists take over a country.



It is one of the most important books that a person needs to know, and ought to be required reading in High Schools everywhere.

[Diogenes]

Not true. The Northern states had no animosity towards the Southern states. Northern Newspaper editors editorialized "Go in peace..." comments. It wasn't until the firing on Ft. Sumter that anger materialized from the North, but none knew at the time of Lincolns deliberate provocation.

So you are saying the Southerners were stupid for rising to the bait?

Yes.

Not all of them were fooled. Several of them pleaded passionately to ignore the insult, pointing out that the Confederacy was regarded as friendly by Northern states, and if Ft. Sumter is fired upon, that friendly disposition will turn to one of anger, and arouse a hornets nest of retribution. ( or some such words.)

It was the hot heads that insisted on the foolish attack.

I think in fact that it was some hot heads in the South who initiated the firing. (You will correct me if I'm in error) So the war may have been a mistake.

Yes. They were full of Piss and Vinegar and wanted to prove they were a force to be reckoned with. They fell into the trap.

When the Civil War started, neither side believed it would last very long or be very severe. The South thought they would send the Northern Garrison at Ft. Sumter packing, and that would be the end of it.

The North thought the Union army could simply go down and seize Richmond and put an end to the silly secessionist nonsense, and be back in time for tea. (People actually brought their families in Wagons with picnic baskets to watch the Union troops give the Confederates a good thrashing! ) When their professional army was beaten severely by a smaller, and rag tag band of defenders, they were at first Terrified (The Retreating army fled back to Washington informing everyone that the Confederates were marching up to seize the Capitol!) and then angry.

At this point, too much blood had been shed, and too much humiliation had occurred to avoid a long protracted bloody war.

My area of Illinois has quite a few small cemeteries filled with Civil War dead. One in a corner of the property of the aerospace plant I worked at. I liked hanging out there. But it was not a generally popular place.

And the Lincoln Douglas debates are re-enacted every year in Freeport. I went to one of them. Took the kids when they were young.

Lincoln was a genius, and the Lincoln Douglas debates demonstrate his cleverness in out maneuvering Douglas and his "State's Rights" philosophy.

Also we used to like to visit Galena. You can FEEL Grant in the air.

Grant was actually a horrible General. What made him successful is his willingness to take horrific casualties without retreating. Given the superior manpower supply, he could afford to (and did) fight a war of attrition. Lee realized after the first battle with Grant that this was the General who would finally do him in. (Lee won the battle, but Grant didn't flee.)

The town blacksmith took a liking to me and gave me a smithed Estes rocket firing platform. My kids were into model rockets at the time.

Loved model rockets. Haven't done it for quite a while though.

[Skipjack]

The town blacksmith took a liking to me and gave me a smithed Estes rocket firing platform. My kids were into model rockets at the time.

I had a couple of those too. The Alpha starter kit and the Space 1999 Eagle. Loved them.

[Skipjack]

Just ran across this. It addresses an obvious point. If this healthcare bill is so good, why did Congressional staffers exempt themselves from the requirements?

Link?

[Diogenes]

Just ran across this. It addresses an obvious point. If this healthcare bill is so good, why did Congressional staffers exempt themselves from the requirements?

Link?

To the place I found the picture, or to an article which mentions that Congressional Democrat staffers exempted themselves from the bill?


The former is here.

The latter is all over the right wing blogosphere. I read about congressional staffers exempting themselves over a week ago, and it was mentioned on most of the blogs I frequented.

I did a google search. Here's one reference to it.

But when it came time to mark up a final version of the health-care bill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid included language that applied only to members of Congress and their personal staffers.

That may well have exempted all congressional staff members employed by committees -- staffers heavily involved in actually writing the final bill.

For more do a google search with "Congressional staffers exempt from health care bill"