Phil K

He might just be the best Republican ever to run, as long as he can get Ivan as his running mate. sorry, i won't be available - my recent write-in campaign for superintendent of public instruction is likely to keep my occupied for a long, long time Hey, you got my vote Ivan.

It seems that Colin's done it, maybe someone else, though I couldn't find a TR.

"Paging Jason Griffith, paging Jason Griffith."

Didn't Christie come up with a counter-proposal for an eating contest?

He's an extremist. No different than Rush Limbaugh or anyone far right that you would hate. [video:youtube]

'Don't know what you're talking about bro.

Pink + Kevbone = Happy Ending.

[edit: In response to KKK, above] Lies, damn lies, and statistics. Shall we argue about which figure is more significant? Either way, that same webiste (I am not vouching for the accuracy of one source, BTW) puts the US at #3 behind Switzerland and Austria. I'm really not interested in spending much more time going back and forth over this, but I do think that if you want to make a point, sticking to actual facts is appropriate. Oh, and we do spend too flipping much on Defense. Duh. And you forgot the pagetop snaffle.

If you fell on a doubled single rope and managed to have both strands take the fall, your impact forces would go way up. Much better to use a single strand w/ coils, or a doubled half (or even better-twin) rope.

Why has no one yet called BS on KKK's assertion? Per capita education spening.

Otherwise known as the "prison years". 'Cause we all know Jason NEVER gets out any more.

No.

Or... post pictures that are 10x too big to display on a page.

That's a fact. The “class 4 my ass” might be avoidable, but it is mountain goat terrain for sure.

Jackbooted liberals.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no huge fan of President Obama (I'm not on such familiar terms with him that I call him Barry), but considering the alternative we were/are being presented with, it's pretty easy to make the right call. Unless you're [Edit: and yes- point taken Jon]

:poke: :poke: :poke: :poke: :poke: :poke: :poke: :poke: :poke: :poke: :poke: :poke: :poke: :poke: :poke: :poke: :poke: :poke:

Why are you dudes getting all aggro with each other when, as JayB pointed out, it's really those greedy over-compensated public employees we should be pissed at? I mean.... pensions and health care and all that. What do they think this is, Soviet Russia?

"Let's see, should I scamper off to the solid looking neve to my right, or try my luck with this thin sheet of snice with water running underneath it?"

Sorry Kev, that was too easy to resist. We do differ in opinion, but in a relatively civil way.

Bro - didn't you throw out your logic long ago?

Exactly. I can think of several studies i've read looking at elderly care and medicares costs per person that have all shown that it's much less expensive to pay up front with prevention, monitoring, and support than to pay on the back end for acute cases. Even going locally I had a chance to talk to some folks who worked at Harborview and were well versed in the topic and some local work had shown the cost in ER visits for local homeless folks per year was more than 2x what the cost would be to house them. Right now these same folks are all getting healthcare, it's just a shell game of when, where and who picks up the tab. I'm not trying to pick on you in particular - but I'll respond to your post since you seem like a smart, reasonable guy and you seem to be sympathetic to the arguments put forward by everyone else who supports the mandate. Which studies are you referring to? Systematic reviews of the costs and benefits of "prevention" do not support any such generalization. "Our findings suggest that the broad generalizations made by many presidential candidates can be misleading. These statements convey the message that substantial resources can be saved through prevention. Although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not." http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0708558 The notion that the uninsured are the primary driver of cost shifting that other payers have to bear is also false. That distinction belongs to medicare and medicaid, both of which systematically pay less than it costs to provide care for those covered by the programs, and the costs of the shortfall are passed onto private payers. Cost shifting from Medicare and Medicaid adds roughly 15% to private payer premiums(1). The uninsured add less than two percent(2). (1)http://publications.milliman.com/research/health-rr/pdfs/hospital-physician-cost-shift-RR12-01-08.pdf (2)http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/7809.pdf Finally - if you support mandating the purchase of health insurance on the grounds that those who do not do so are imposing costs on everyone else, how would you feel about the government mandating that everyone in the country maintain a healthy body weight and fining those who refuse to comply with the mandate on the basis that they are imposing costs on everyone else? It's not clear to me how a logically consistent person could support the former and not the latter. 'Couple of points: The NEJM article you linked to discusses the topic of whether or not preventative care, increased screenings, etc. reduces overall costs. Not the effect of cost shifting for unreimbursed (uninsured and unable to self pay) care, which is more what I was referring to. This does contribute significantly to facility "overhead" which is eventually paid for somehow, by somebody. I just finished a good quick read on the subject; The House Of Hope And Fear by Audrey Young, MD who is an ER doc at Harborview. Their policy of not turning any patient away means that they are the local medical safety net, and end up seeing many indigents who would have better outcomes at vastly lower costs if they had access to (and chose to use) basic medical care before they end up face down in some alley. A big part of the problem is that many of these people consistently make bad choices in their lives, and to some degree, we either all are going to end up paying for those choices, or as said above, let 'em die lake rats in the street. I choose the former. YMMV. The basic premise of a universal insurance pool is that the costs are spread across the whole of society, and that to some degree, yes, healthy folks, people who make better lifestyle choices, do share some of that burden. We do live in a society where too many people make too many bad choices, but that is a vast, stubborn problem which is likely beyond the means of the CC.com brain trust to solve. As to charging a "fat tax" for our BMI challenged brethren, sure go for it. But then, we'd have to start putting premiums on everything under the sun. Smoker? Going to cost you. Enjoy more than 1 drink per day? Pay up. Climber? Mmmmmm, no free ride for you bucko. Terminally stupid? Pay up front, please. See where that leads?

Kev, if you really were a simpleton that would be excusable. But you are just willfully ignorant like 99% of the Tea-tard/Ron Paul/Faux News kooks. You could have a clue, but you refuse to; shame on you.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner. Or would that be socialism? Like the Veterans Administration.