I switched when I had a friend get their debit card stolen. She said the cops pointed out to her that if you only use CC, then while you're in the dispute process you have all your money whereas if you use a debit card, somebody else has your money while your in the dispute process. It's a big fucking deal when it's time to pay your rent/mortgage.
I walk my children to school past a "When Children Are Present" sing. I've never seen a single driver obey the lower speed limit. So if that's appropriate action, then yes, I'll bet it can do that. I'd take just obeying the posted normal limit.
Cold, I don't consider part c plans (your first link) to be fraudulent but I'm amazed to see a Republican back plans that have these characteristics:
* Part C plans cost 15% more than Medicare * There is no evidence that Part C plans are better than Medicare
Part C could have been interesting if the first line was different. What if they cost 10% less and there wasn't evidence that medicare was better? Hmm, maybe? But the Republicans didn't set them up that way. They set them up to cost more. The best thing that can be said about them is that they offered free health club memberships. But then we'd have a Republican claiming that the government should be spending $1,500 / year to get seniors health club memberships. Are you seriously going to say that?
The fraud prevention has to do with Medicare fraud being rampant. The law was setup, by congress, so that providers had a right to participate in the programs. So Medicare would shutdown a fraudulent biller and they could apply to be covered the next day. Then, by law, Medicare would have to accept them into the program (it was a right). Now, Medicare has more power to prevent this type of fraud. This is a good thing. Don't you agree?
I'm unaware of the right abandoning Obamacare. It's a great idea. It used to be that if you wanted to start a business or continue to run a small business, you would have to go find health insurance on a market that would discriminate harshly against you. Now, you go to one big market and get good rates. So small businesses are easier to open and more affordable to open. It's really just trying to prevent a Democrat from getting credit for something good that is making the right hate Obamacare, not the policy, which is great.
I don't think that heavily armored vehicle without a functioning gun on the front qualifies as a tank. I also can find nothing about privately owned air-ready F-16s, but even then, it would have no weapon systems. And I was talking about these systems as weapons, not expensive toys.
Blame: I'll take it. The vast majority of the bill is intended to reduce fraud in medicare (and has done so). The parts that you think of as Obamacare are working out very well too.
But, I do admit that the intellectual conception of Obamacare came from the right wing think tanks. And that makes sense, it's ultimately very libertarian / free market oriented. They just couldn't get it implemented.
I agree. CDC advises health professionals who are free to not give a fuck what they say and do their own thing. Regulations on doctors in the US are essentially zero and will stay that way. In the end our health system depends on doctors to do the right thing and while most do, some don't.
Dude, fucking Nigeria was able to contain an outbreak with... let's just say less resources than US hospitals and CDC. The real problem is that our "best health system" is actually an otherwise shitty health system with many very good doctors and nurses in it.
People don't like some ways of dyeing more than others. Example: airline crash is a real least favorite. We spend far more per death preventing that one than ones like flu.
1. there is no fast and furious gun running blame on anything but lax gun laws. Were there laws that allowed one to jail suspected gun runners, they would have been enforced, but law enforcement don't waste their time when they know they can't get a conviction. The real fast and furious debacle is on the gun lobby that keeps those laws lax.
2. The notion that the President of the United States (and I mean any President) would appoint an ambassador to another nation and then intentionally bring harm upon them is insane. You would, at a minimum, need some sort of motive here to get me interested enough to research this.
3. I didn't see any indication that Obama or even the WH had anything to do with this, instructed this to happen, or that it wasn't a rogue employee / office. Plus, in the end here, you're talking about tax exempt status being on the line. How could that possibly raise to the level of Watergate?
As for watergate, you are correct, it was far from the worst thing Nixon did--but it is still 100 times worse than the worst Obama has done.
Don't get me wrong, Nixon did some great things (creating of the EPA among them). But he and Johnson really abused the power of the presidency and both continued a war purely for political gain at an enormous cost in lives. I mean, you're worried about a delayed tax exempt status while Johnson / Nixon had the NSA spying on MLK.
Setting aside that the Republicans controlled all three branches of government from 2001 - 2006, this narrative assumes that the federally backed loan buyers (Fannie and Freddie) were the drivers of the speculative bubble, but they weren't--the wall street firms were way out in the lead on this and Fannie and Freddie were just following along after the party was most of the way over.
Cute theory, but the rail system is controlled by a collaboration of DC, Virginia, and Maryland. Far from one party in control. Also not dysfunctional as far as I can see.
I think you are trying to be ironic and are throwing your hands up. But try to disprove me on this claim: there is no more effective or prolific trust buster than the USG.
Slashdot Mirror
I switched when I had a friend get their debit card stolen. She said the cops pointed out to her that if you only use CC, then while you're in the dispute process you have all your money whereas if you use a debit card, somebody else has your money while your in the dispute process. It's a big fucking deal when it's time to pay your rent/mortgage.
I felt that way until my child's teacher decided FB was the right way to disseminate information about classroom activities.
I walk my children to school past a "When Children Are Present" sing. I've never seen a single driver obey the lower speed limit. So if that's appropriate action, then yes, I'll bet it can do that. I'd take just obeying the posted normal limit.
Cold, I don't consider part c plans (your first link) to be fraudulent but I'm amazed to see a Republican back plans that have these characteristics:
* Part C plans cost 15% more than Medicare
* There is no evidence that Part C plans are better than Medicare
Part C could have been interesting if the first line was different. What if they cost 10% less and there wasn't evidence that medicare was better? Hmm, maybe? But the Republicans didn't set them up that way. They set them up to cost more. The best thing that can be said about them is that they offered free health club memberships. But then we'd have a Republican claiming that the government should be spending $1,500 / year to get seniors health club memberships. Are you seriously going to say that?
The fraud prevention has to do with Medicare fraud being rampant. The law was setup, by congress, so that providers had a right to participate in the programs. So Medicare would shutdown a fraudulent biller and they could apply to be covered the next day. Then, by law, Medicare would have to accept them into the program (it was a right). Now, Medicare has more power to prevent this type of fraud. This is a good thing. Don't you agree?
I'm unaware of the right abandoning Obamacare. It's a great idea. It used to be that if you wanted to start a business or continue to run a small business, you would have to go find health insurance on a market that would discriminate harshly against you. Now, you go to one big market and get good rates. So small businesses are easier to open and more affordable to open. It's really just trying to prevent a Democrat from getting credit for something good that is making the right hate Obamacare, not the policy, which is great.
It was a European trainer jet.
I'm talking about these items as weapon systems. I also doubt that they jet is at all recent (or if it is, that it could fly in US airspace).
I don't think that heavily armored vehicle without a functioning gun on the front qualifies as a tank. I also can find nothing about privately owned air-ready F-16s, but even then, it would have no weapon systems. And I was talking about these systems as weapons, not expensive toys.
Blame: I'll take it. The vast majority of the bill is intended to reduce fraud in medicare (and has done so). The parts that you think of as Obamacare are working out very well too.
But, I do admit that the intellectual conception of Obamacare came from the right wing think tanks. And that makes sense, it's ultimately very libertarian / free market oriented. They just couldn't get it implemented.
I agree. CDC advises health professionals who are free to not give a fuck what they say and do their own thing. Regulations on doctors in the US are essentially zero and will stay that way. In the end our health system depends on doctors to do the right thing and while most do, some don't.
Dude, fucking Nigeria was able to contain an outbreak with... let's just say less resources than US hospitals and CDC. The real problem is that our "best health system" is actually an otherwise shitty health system with many very good doctors and nurses in it.
People don't like some ways of dyeing more than others. Example: airline crash is a real least favorite. We spend far more per death preventing that one than ones like flu.
I've met one too, in person. They worked for MS.
OK, try to go buy a thank or an F-16 and tell me how that works out for you.
So, what do you think makes the core of the earth so hot? Hint: it isn't the sun and a few MW per person per month doesn't compare to it.
Thank you for explaining.
I'm sorry, but how is slavery not a terrible thing before you realize rape was a regular part of it?
It's still annoying.
Who said anyone has the ability to shoot down satellites? I thought star wars was a bust.
1. there is no fast and furious gun running blame on anything but lax gun laws. Were there laws that allowed one to jail suspected gun runners, they would have been enforced, but law enforcement don't waste their time when they know they can't get a conviction. The real fast and furious debacle is on the gun lobby that keeps those laws lax.
2. The notion that the President of the United States (and I mean any President) would appoint an ambassador to another nation and then intentionally bring harm upon them is insane. You would, at a minimum, need some sort of motive here to get me interested enough to research this.
3. I didn't see any indication that Obama or even the WH had anything to do with this, instructed this to happen, or that it wasn't a rogue employee / office. Plus, in the end here, you're talking about tax exempt status being on the line. How could that possibly raise to the level of Watergate?
As for watergate, you are correct, it was far from the worst thing Nixon did--but it is still 100 times worse than the worst Obama has done.
Don't get me wrong, Nixon did some great things (creating of the EPA among them). But he and Johnson really abused the power of the presidency and both continued a war purely for political gain at an enormous cost in lives. I mean, you're worried about a delayed tax exempt status while Johnson / Nixon had the NSA spying on MLK.
Name one worse than watergate.
Setting aside that the Republicans controlled all three branches of government from 2001 - 2006, this narrative assumes that the federally backed loan buyers (Fannie and Freddie) were the drivers of the speculative bubble, but they weren't--the wall street firms were way out in the lead on this and Fannie and Freddie were just following along after the party was most of the way over.
Cute theory, but the rail system is controlled by a collaboration of DC, Virginia, and Maryland. Far from one party in control. Also not dysfunctional as far as I can see.
I think you are trying to be ironic and are throwing your hands up. But try to disprove me on this claim: there is no more effective or prolific trust buster than the USG.
Yes, and then there is the question of why I might care about that. Well, except to note that LEO was also no that valuable.
what color do you think blood in your veins is, exactly?