archenemy

especially "staff" skilz

And a sharp tail

No, but I do have multiple computers

the climbers board right now. Can that be right?

Especially when everyone knows that what you really want is a hummer

Men could go back to the original method of swearing in. They held their balls in one hand and swore their oath. The word "testimony" and the word "testicle" are from the same root word. Women, of course, would get to chose whose balls they would want to hold whilst swearing.

I am curious where you have learned this information--I would like to read more about it. As far as I know, insurance companies exist in many forms. Premera Blue Cross, for example, is one of WAs largest providers and it is a non-profit. Regence Blue Shield is employee owned if I remember correctly. These companies don't rely on the stock market for thier income. There are also many smaller companies that fill niche markets. My father built and owned one of these small companies. What almost put a very lucrative, solvent company under was one person. One woman gave premature birth to triplets who were not healthy. They would have to be hooked up on machines to survive, and had defects mimicking encephalitis (no brain). The mother fought to have these kids kept alive, and won a huge settlement to do so. The triplets are now in their early twenties. They have never moved, spoken, etc on their own. But they do get paychecks. By using all means available to keep every person alive no matter what the possible outcome (Terry S.?), our medical system is being drained of resources. This "culture of life" is expensive. It's too expensive. And we refuse to ration healthcare, even when it seems like a logical, humane choice. I am not saying this is the whole problem, but I do think it adds to the whole issue. And as an aside, I do not see the instability of the stock market as a detrimental force. It is the very dynamic that enables people to make money from it.

Do you think Gramma's wishes figure much in the decision? I can tell you they don't. Very few people wish they lived in a nursing home. It's a place of last resort. Exactly

They are going after people for much less than that. The amount is small to the state, big to the family. Also, elderly (especially women) usually don't grasp what is at stake. And their kids usually don't expect to be taxed again for Medicaid. You may have a different approach after you get more acquainted with the system--if its you who will be actually helping your Gma. Best of luck to you.

I didn't like you until right now. Well said lady! I like this side way better than the fun loving airhead. You

They had the choice to take grandma into their home and pay for her themselves, and keep the assets, or have the government pay for her care and then forfeit the assets. I confess I'm at a loss how the government confiscating a persons property to pay for services directly used by that person is heartless and cruel. I think you are forgetting someone in this equation. How about Gramma's wishes? This issue either has not yet directly affected you (directly meaning that you are the one who had to not only make the decision but also clean the bed pan) or you are the heartless one. I sincerely hope it is the former, and I also hope you never have to be.

So you can suckle on the federal teat, but when the bill comes do you shouldn't have to pay? That's an outrage. At the risk of thread drift: Medicaid is supposed to be a safety net to ensure health care for the poor. People don't qualify for Medicaid unless they can prove that they are essentially destitute. The biggest Medicaid expense is nursing home care for the elderly. In order to keep their greedy mitts on their parents' money, many families shift parental assets to themselves, to make an elderly parent suddenly destitute and therefore Medicaid eligible. This is known as cheating the government. If the government finds that the appearance of poverty was faked, it will go after the remaining estate to recoup its costs. Not thread drift--VERY good point! The problem here is that this is not the problem--it is the symptom. the problem is that if you are not destitute before you go on medicaid, you sure will be after you do. The problem is the healthcare system. But talking about that leads to people calling each other socialists and all that crap. I don't think we realize that people are suffering in very real ways--they are losing the homes they've had for generations, they are losing their inheiritance and their history. That is gonna take more than a band-aid.

What a crackup. Read a little about the history of the US Dollar and the world economy before you post

oxyincontenent

will our storage limit increase?

You must be the virgin he was looking for

When the teat should have been paid for already? Yes, its an outrage.

Well said. And if this way to steal your property weren't enough: Did anyone read the front page article in the Wall St. J this morning about states now going after estates of deceased Medicaid patients? States are saying that you owe them for the benefits you used in your dying years. Never mind that your generation as well as all those that followed you have paid into it already. Now your family gets a surprise call right after you die (they call quick before ownership of bank accounts, houses, etc) changes hands. If they can't take your property while you're alive, they will come and kick your survivors right out of your house and take it. That is an outrage.

The post makes me want to kill that guy then go inhale oxywhateva

Bratty ? Serial killers usually start out with animals, the really bad ones start with young helpless kittens, I can see it now, " No mommie I was uhh, trying to teach them to swim , ya thats it.." They also wet the bed and light fires.

The whole premise of the corporate charter from the very first one was that the corporation is its own entity under the law. Although it has claim to protections equivalent to people, it is not part of the "public" per se. A corporate charter can create either a public or a private corporation, but the only difference is whether that corporation can be owned by a few or is open to anyone to purchase. Either way, it is not part of the public (i.e. no voting rights, etc). But with the money they have, they run shit--that's for sure.

I think I am even slower, but the way I see it the government spent 8 million bucks to have someone drive a backhoe and a bulldozer down the Darrington road to fix it. How is that any different than the government paying congressmen to make a law providing for civil rights, banning slavery, then paying courts and police officers to enfore them. 8 million bucks out of our pocket is 8 million bucks, some of it goes to fixing roads, some of it goes to making and enforcing laws. I'm going to strangle you. The laws they were enforcing with our money were against our (changing) wishes. They wouldn't change them when we "asked". Then we had to force them to. I am signing off now, I'll check back with you later. I know you will have figured it out by then--you have an MBA for gods sake.

Why does a newspaper work? Because its red.

I'm slow, so you'll have to clarify for me the difference between these two things (as if I were a homeowner).

YOu have strayed from the original arguement: the gov't does not do something when asked. We have now allowed for two pressures: violence and money. You are now argueing my point for me. Yes, I will agree that for big issues the goverment does not do something when asked, and they need a bit more convincing like riots, rebellions, protests, etc. However with the smaller issues, the government varies. The Darrington access road was fixed when a group of people asked which was my counterpoint to you saying the government 'never' does anything when asked No--they were PAID 8 million bucks for this!