glassgowkiss

at least 1/5 of Americans with insurance do not follow through with needed care because of additional costs they can't afford. In case of major illness their coverage often becomes completely useless. I don't think the issue is so simple. I think a vast majority of people don't even know how to take care of themselves, they eat like shit and don't exercise at all- hence the epidemic of morbidly obese and fat people, which btw is the biggest strain on the system at the moment. The problem is the insurance companies are interested in people getting ill, so they can charge them whatever they want, hence creating lifetime customers, as you can't change the plan if you have pre-existing condition. But i agree, people don't realize majority of plans are worthless when it comes to major illness.

just check for bricks inside a snow pile- a friend of my broke both of his legs jumping like that off the 4th floor, just to find out it wasn't deep ile of snow, but snow covered bricks. Funny how the woman in the video is asking if each of the jumpers lived?

for all you smokers out there: Deadliest smoke

84%- where the fuck did you get this number? fox news? and how many out of your 84 have only so-called catastrophic coverage, which btw don't really cover anything. and since you are such a fucking duche-nozzle expert on healthcare when did you have to pay any medical bills. by the way you spew your bullshit not in the last decade. Bob: That figure comes from the US Census Bureau. Specifically, page 27 of this publication: http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-236.pdf You'll find the text below on the top left of the said page: "The percentage of people without health insurance in 2008 was not statistically different from 2007 at 15.4 percent." This figure includes people who are only uninsured for part of the year, those who make enough to purchase coverage but decline to do so, non-citizens, etc, etc, etc, etc and as such dramatically *overstates* the number of people who cannot get coverage because they're too poor or too sick. It's strange for someone who's concerned about the price of coverage complain about high-deductible plans, when they're one of the few good mechanisms available to limit wasteful spending, keep premiums affordable, limit the capacity of insurance companies to meddle in routine medical decisions, while simultaneously protecting against getting wiped out in a medical catastrophe. If you're upset about anything, it should be the first dollar plans that encourage waste and state mandates that foist the cost of fertility treatments, massages, Retin-A scripts, etc, etc, etc, etc, on people who just want something to cover them when they get a serious injury or illness. Now how is medical massage a wasteful treatment- maybe elaborate? Even internal GH study in 2006 showed massage as the single best method in chronic low back pain (86% effective), while other modalities like PT, chiropractic or drug treatment (which was the lowest with only 28%) were far below that. Again- over 80% of patients have reoccurring thoraco-lumbar back pain within 5 years of a surgery, which costs on average insurance companies 28bln dollars a year. Same goes for conditions like CT, TOS and such. The problems with catastrophic insurance policies are: 1. doesn't promote preventive medicine- usually patients only use it in emergency- hence the conditions go undetected. 2. don't cover medications. this is a big one- if you don't know majority of medications for serious type illness like auto-immune disorders or cancer might run you about 100K a month. with catastrophic coverage there is no clinic or hospital which will treat you without pre-payment. ER will not manage chronic conditions, so people are getting royally screwed.

84%- where the fuck did you get this number? fox news? and how many out of your 84 have only so-called catastrophic coverage, which btw don't really cover anything. and since you are such a fucking duche-nozzle expert on healthcare when did you have to pay any medical bills. by the way you spew your bullshit not in the last decade.

I respectfully disagree. Majority of funding for NPR comes from listeners and some corporations, the government funding is only a few percent- thanks in big part to Reagan's policies. As the matter of fact they were quite critical of the previous administration as well. I agree- somewhat headline news, but really? more like 3rd page.

What a bullshit I always thought NPR is setting standards for unbiased reporting, looks like even this organization is going down the tubes. Recalls are the way of life in auto industry. Not too long ago there were exploding tanks on GM trucks, Bridgestone exploding tires, Ford Explorer roll-overs- just of the top of my head! So what is different in Toyota case that takes such headlines? I had already 4 Toyota cars and by far they were the most reliable vehicles I have ever had and I intend to buy more Toyotas in the future. I think the whole matter is blow out of proportion 10 fold

start by mandating that insurance companies are non-profit If you check both Regence and Premiera of Washington and Alaska already are. So your solution is already there and it's obvious it doesn't work.

That's not always possible, as the matter of fact there are numerous restrictions. The rates will be calculated based upon the age, also if you have pre-existing condition you'll be denied coverage.

Reciting bogus stats is beneath you, Off. Ditto, the comment re my children. But I should have clarified: This monster of a bill is dead. And any bill wherein the president blatantly lies ("you get to keep your doctor") to the American people will suffer the same fate. I would love to get the insurance industry under control, but all your side can do is think about ways to supplant it with government. Pathetic, really. it only become monster when rupublifucks, joefuckingliberman and fuckwad from nebraska had his way. i wonder how much insurance companies contributed to their campaigns?

I wish this legislation just simply died. for now insurance companies fucked the uneducated general public (FW &co) up the ass with sky rocketing costs, now it looks they are trying to go after tax dollars. unless there is a limit on costs increases, public option the only winner will be insurers.

I am looking for a solar charger to charge a computer and/or camcorder batteries. Any suggestions? - no spray please

what a pile of garbage!

I think you are using a term without understanding the meaning of it, which in this specific case is so frequently quoted term "fair use". A simple google search would pretty much show your complete and utterly lack of understanding of this subject matter or meaning of this term. "Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship." "The legal concept of "Test copyright" was first ratified by the Kingdom of Great Britain's Statute of Anne of 1709. As room was not made for the authorized reproduction of copyrighted content within this newly formulated statutory right, the courts created a doctrine of "fair abridgment" in Gyles v Wilcox, which eventually evolved into the modern concept of "fair use," that recognized the utility of such actions. The doctrine only existed in the U.S. as common law until it was incorporated into the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107. Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include: the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." Also before any other reply on your side I would advise you on such terms like: "due diligence" and "commercial purposes product". As to term "most frequently" - no gray area there- it's the distributor's responsibility to do a "due diligence" as far as copy rights. Some bigger production companies have enough manpower and resources to provide the distributor with the cleared releases, but in case of smaller production companies it is up to the distributor to take care of this part. And yes, I made BD aware of this already some time ago, so it's not like they were not aware of the problem.

No he is frequenting a pig farm after last elections.

This has nothing to do with fair use at all. I think you have to understand that fair use would be a program reviewing music or a piece of educational nature. ENG or any commercial production doesn't fall into this category at all, regardless of means of distribution. And this is a point- it's not only who is producing, but also who is distributing. Most frequently it is up to the distributor (regardless if it Lionsgate or BD), who have to ensure the copy rights are respected.

Truly if someone steals your car or gear who gives a shit, right?

Such a big word for shellac load slurping tea-bagger and pig fucker. Here is something for you: [video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDmoDs8TXLE

Now this is just laziness on the part of editor- simply change the ring tone or mute it. And again- know your output! I know a lot of film makers are paranoid about background music, which can create a real headache.

FW- FYI Rob's ex told me she can't be stretched- it's from then on like banging baseball bat in a garage or tossing a hotdog in hallway. On the other hand you left active bear trap- maybe the reason you were rejected by a pig? yes- size matters.

I think if you play music and don't give credit, plus you don't even have permission to use it you make it look like your own. "Borrowing"- how neatly said! Maybe I will "borrow" a few bucks from your wallet without your knowledge. I am sure "a borrower" will return it soon. In case of a film how do you you think you can "return" the item? Hence my title: a theft is a theft, regardless of what you are stealing.

What is to discuss?

I think Blake nailed it on the head by saying he used music "without thinking twice". I guess the thing to to is to think twice or three times. My point is there is a lot of music out there, a lot of it is good, hight quality and very, very creative. Instead of cutting corners if you are doing slide shows/ films one might contact your local musician and give them some support by using their music with permission and give them some free promotion in return. Since you are not dealing with "label" it will be a very easy "gentlemen agreement" situation, where both sides will benefit from it. BTW creativity is about exploring unexplored, copying someone's work is just plagiarism.

They are supposed to. ASCAP sued 12 venues around the country for playing music without a license. I know DJ's are also supposed to purchase a license. These licenses are not like a royalty agreements for motion pictures, but rather a blanket license for all music played.

Rob, I like your location.