fenderfour

This Game of Ghosts was pretty good. So Was K2 Savage Summit. Burgess Book of lies was also fun. Not climbing related, but Mission: Al Jazeera is worth reading.

no

This is the worst possible solution. Forcing people to buy somethign from a private company is bullshit. Talk about taking away your freedoms. Tax credits are a boon doggle. EIC is already in place for people who wouldn't be able to afford insurance. The only way for these people to get healthcare is if the tax credits were to pay them significantly more than they paid in the first place. Even then, the financial burden wouldn't be manageable. They wouldn't get that money back until their tax returns were filed. How would being forced to pay for a good from a private company - in a system where aside from satisfying certain minimum coverage requirements - you are free to choose from catastrophic versus comprehensive coverage, you are fee to choose from policies offered by all participants in a competitive health-insurance market, etc...worse than being forced to pay into a unitary system run by the government where you have none of these things? Would you rather buy your car insurance from a government run monopoly, instead of participating in the current system, where the government mandates coverage and certain minimums but otherwise allows insurers to compete for your business and for you to choose who you want to buy your insurance from? If we were discussing private monopolies versus public monopolies I might agree with you, but none of the compulsory insurance models that I'm aware of include the establishment of private monopolies in their plans. There is no real competition at that level. The service is the same where ever you go. All of the rates are inflated and the people at the top are making money hand over fist. The insurance companies all know the rates for certain coverages and they have carved out their little markets. They stay just far enough away from each other tha tthere is no anti trust case. Yes, I would greatly prefer to have the government provide the required liability coverage instead of criminalizing the failure to purchase something from a private company. This would also provide more protection for you and me. Do you carry Uninsured Motorist coverage? Let me be clear on this. I don't think a single payer system is the answer. There is a basic coverage requirement (Car or health) that can be provided by the government. Further coverage can be provided by private companies. Without the huge income from the sale of the required coverage, the providers would actually have to compete to gain customers. They would end up providing a better product. Without you choosing them, they would go under.

Very easy to find. Cross the irrigation channel and look for a trail on the right. It was shady and fun last saturday. We had it all to ourselves until around noon.

and prepare for teh suck

This is the worst possible solution. Forcing people to buy somethign from a private company is bullshit. Talk about taking away your freedoms. Tax credits are a boon doggle. EIC is already in place for people who wouldn't be able to afford insurance. The only way for these people to get healthcare is if the tax credits were to pay them significantly more than they paid in the first place. Even then, the financial burden wouldn't be manageable. They wouldn't get that money back until their tax returns were filed.

The webbing does wear, but its not that big of a deal. The Fish daisies are a lot burlier than Metolius.

... at least he's persistent.

Arguing without an educated position will get you branded these things. Remember - "Us" and "Them" politics only benefits the politicians and the lobbying companies behind them.

Adjustable daisies are the shit. Don't listen to the standard daisy folks. No, you won't be able to break the top-step barrier. That's more about nuts than daisies. The top step barrier is easily broken with Russian Aiders, but they are a real bitch to find.

And what happens when Hillary tells you that accidents resulting from climbing are not covered by the nationalized health care system? It's more likely to be my insurance company that says it.

When I hear of uninsured I think of elderly folks, or poor families and kids, not "healthy, athletic, 20-year-olds". Seems to me the person looking out for #1 is YOU and the other posters on this site, who want ME to pay for YOU. It's already been said. We can take your insurance premium, my insurance premium, and everyone else's insurance premium and pay for healthcare for EVERYONE. I would be willing to take a risk, possibly reducing the quality of my care so that others can have some. Mostly because I don't think quality of care would diminish at all.

Please try harder in the future. I'm not going to pick this apart because even you know this is a poor argument.

N

A new MTV reality show "Roomies". THe first season features Oj Simpson, Mike Tyson, Gary Busey, and Brittney Spears sharing a loft in New York City. Possible highlights: Anti-depressant free Thursdays Gary Busey Mike's night to cook dinner OJ gets all stabby again

I will not be there.

R&D in Leavenworth has an easy chimney. At the top of the route, there is a more difficult chimney in the ground. Staying along the cliff edge, head to climber's right and look down.

I'd bet most of those kid's parents don't know what leading is.

...and the government wouldn't pay $70k. The insurance companies don't pay $70k.

And THAT is a compelling argument? The government will decide this? FUCK YOU. The government's decision would be no different than a private insurance company. Don't kid yourself.

I can't help but think that you are one of those "It's ok because it's not me" kind of people. It could quickly become you or someone you care about, since its pretty obvious you aren't a humanitarian. it's all about "feelings" after all. that's how we should base these decisions. and doing "something" is better than doing "nothing". something. anything. It's not about feelings. It's about logic. I am the last person to do something for the love of the common man. I am a bleeding heart nothing. I do want to thank you for generalizing me based on a few posts on an internet board.

And THAT did not turn out well.

I can't help but think that you are one of those "It's ok because it's not me" kind of people. It could quickly become you or someone you care about, since its pretty obvious you aren't a humanitarian.

... Life, liberty, and happiness

Silly response - yes. Silly question - no. Why not eliminate the private market for food and place it in the hands of the government? The arguments used to justify nationalizing healthcare apply equally well to food. If you want the government to be responsible for paying for, administering, and distributing all goods and services in the healthcare market on the grounds that the private sector is incapable of doing so efficiently, how is it that the same government could not execute the same tasks just as well when it comes to producing and distributing food? Seriously. This is called "the slippery slope". Fact: The private sector is having no problems providing food at affordable rates to everyone in the US. It's working. Don't try to fix it. Fact: The private sector is not able to provide healthcare at affordable rates to a significant portion of the US. It's not working. Maybe we should try something.