Slow motion rehearsals--work!!!

[QUOTE=12sandwich]We can probably thank Rahm Emanuel for healthcare reform, more than we realise. I cant even imagine the personal debate, for him and his family, as I believe there Doctors. Long term is what we need to look at, and middle America plunking out 700 a month for a family of three as I do, is outrageous![/QUOTE]

Rahm's brother Ezekiel Emmanuel is a doctor.

He wrote a paper in 2008 detailing his "Complete Lives Program" in which health care money is doled out to ppl according to how complete their lives are.

If your life is relatively complete, i.e. your productive years are behind you and you're over 65, then Dr. Emmanuel believes you should 'get' substantially less medical money than you probably are getting now, given private insurance and medicare and so forth. It's wrong, he says, for seniors to 'spend' so much money on their healthcare when they're not producing anything or adding to society. He believes they should have the courtesy to die and save the money to be spent on more PRODUCTIVE people, i.e. young people who can work and create wealth to tax.

The people who should get the most health care? Not infants, as you might first believe. Dr. Emmanuel says they haven't yet been educated and represent a substantial expense to the state before they'll be ready to be productive and make money to tax.

No, it's the high school senior who Dr. Emmanuel says should get the most money spent on his care. Because that person, already educated, has forty years of being productive, of making food or clothes or building things or inventing things, ahead of him or her.

Never mind that the high school senior is pretty much ironclad healthy in most cases and does not require very much health care.

It is normal and natural to get sick when you're older. that is WHY most of the money is spent when we're old. If we've paid into programs like medicare for forty years, why SHOULDN"T we get something out of it when we are in need?

Dr. Emmanuel says we shouldn't. Because we're not productive. Just dead weight. OUr humanity, our individuality, is dismissed and we are tossed out like sacks of trash to the dump.

This is the future vision of DOCTOR Ezekiel Emmanuel, brother to the White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel. It is of course also the future vision of Rahm, and Barack, and Nancy, and Harry.

As Robert B. Reich said in a speech to UCLA students in 2007, speaking as "that rare creature, an honest candidate telling you the truth", he admits that we can't afford to spend all that money at the end of your life to add months or a year to it, that you need to just die so we can save the money. This kind of honesty, he says, you'll never hear from a candidate because he could never get elected speaking like this.

When we are responsible for ourselves, we can spend our own money on our own health care if we want. It's our money. We earned it. If we want to try to live a month longer, it's up to us.

But when its a tax-n-spend government deal, government gets to decide whether you live or die. They will not be kind about it.

Google "Complete Lives Program", Ezekiel Emmanuel, MD. You will find the true blueprint for Obamacare.

This is freakin' scary stuff. Anyone who voted for this regime, deserves what they get. The rest of us need to spend every waking moment making sure that we take back the house and senate and make this clown a lame duck for the rest of his term. I still can't believe how many educated people fell for this guy's [I]Change You Can Believe In[/I]. What a bunch of nimrods.

[QUOTE=daveperkins]In the old days there was quite a bit of fast forward movement in the left knee, culminating in the reverse C move so famous then... nowadays the standard finish position is much more vertical, having remained much more over the ball during impact and with less of that forward movement of the lower body...

Guys like Kite, who used to do the reverse C spine-crunching followthrough, now stand sedately vertical on finish... amazing how you adapt to keep from hurting yourself..

impact position back then featured the left knee bent and out ahead of the body, both knees flexed and rushing forward along with the club... photos look like a runner caught in stride...

now it looks like the left leg and left hip are against a brick wall and cannot move forward..

interesting change in the way it works... a good change... probably saves a lot of spines AND promotes consistent striking.[/QUOTE]

All true. The "post" move is the necessary engagement of the front hip. The leg can be straight or slightly bent-- but the lateral move of our butt must stop when the leg is vertical. From there the shoulders and arms can be accelerated by the hips turning toward the target leading the shoulders. The torso muscles are stretched and released like popping a whip-- when we stop or even pull the handle back the flexible parts are flung forward.

This is our subject today because so few can make the lateral move after their backswing turn. They (and I) seemed powerless to stop themselves from instantly initiating the shoulders swing turn.

The ONLY POSSIBLE answer is to ingrain the right moves. Slow motion rehearsals seem logical-- and of course hitting balls only a short distance. Eventually our subconscious will get the idea, (hopefully!). AND, if we know we are doing it wrong and really want to unlearn that--we must be willing to avoid playing for a while.

Larry

[QUOTE=daveperkins]Rahm's brother Ezekiel Emmanuel is a doctor.

He wrote a paper in 2008 detailing his "Complete Lives Program" in which health care money is doled out to ppl according to how complete their lives are.

If your life is relatively complete, i.e. your productive years are behind you and you're over 65, then Dr. Emmanuel believes you should 'get' substantially less medical money than you probably are getting now, given private insurance and medicare and so forth. It's wrong, he says, for seniors to 'spend' so much money on their healthcare when they're not producing anything or adding to society. He believes they should have the courtesy to die and save the money to be spent on more PRODUCTIVE people, i.e. young people who can work and create wealth to tax.

The people who should get the most health care? Not infants, as you might first believe. Dr. Emmanuel says they haven't yet been educated and represent a substantial expense to the state before they'll be ready to be productive and make money to tax.

No, it's the high school senior who Dr. Emmanuel says should get the most money spent on his care. Because that person, already educated, has forty years of being productive, of making food or clothes or building things or inventing things, ahead of him or her.

Never mind that the high school senior is pretty much ironclad healthy in most cases and does not require very much health care.

It is normal and natural to get sick when you're older. that is WHY most of the money is spent when we're old. If we've paid into programs like medicare for forty years, why SHOULDN"T we get something out of it when we are in need?

Dr. Emmanuel says we shouldn't. Because we're not productive. Just dead weight. OUr humanity, our individuality, is dismissed and we are tossed out like sacks of trash to the dump.

This is the future vision of DOCTOR Ezekiel Emmanuel, brother to the White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel. It is of course also the future vision of Rahm, and Barack, and Nancy, and Harry.

As Robert B. Reich said in a speech to UCLA students in 2007, speaking as "that rare creature, an honest candidate telling you the truth", he admits that we can't afford to spend all that money at the end of your life to add months or a year to it, that you need to just die so we can save the money. This kind of honesty, he says, you'll never hear from a candidate because he could never get elected speaking like this.

When we are responsible for ourselves, we can spend our own money on our own health care if we want. It's our money. We earned it. If we want to try to live a month longer, it's up to us.

But when its a tax-n-spend government deal, government gets to decide whether you live or die. They will not be kind about it.

Google "Complete Lives Program", Ezekiel Emmanuel, MD. You will find the true blueprint for Obamacare.[/QUOTE]
Dave you are truly a Scholar and a golfer

[QUOTE=lorenzoinoc]What seems lost in this is Hogan wasn't a post-up player. He swung his left knee outward on the downswing and rotated the hips. It looks as if his hips slide forward, but if you look at his swing and mark his right hip at the top, you might be amazed at how little lateral motion there is on the downswing. Hogan cleared his left knee early in the downswing but kept it bent. All this enabled him to stay behind the ball while getting forward enough for a downward strike.[/QUOTE]

Hogan seemed to start his backswing with some weight on his front foot--and kept it there. Hence the accusation that he made a "reverse pivot." He never shifted back very far-- and certainly not fully onto his back heel as is being taught today. His entire motion happened in .7 seconds. A full second is average today and amateurs are in the 1.5 range. Hogan made a wonderful transition weight shift -- McLean and others say his shift move is still the best in golf. He shifted to his front hip and then FIRED his hips (ala Tiger). That is the reason Hogan was LONG even though he was a relatively little guy.

Larry

[QUOTE=daveperkins]Rahm's brother Ezekiel Emmanuel is a doctor.

He wrote a paper in 2008 detailing his "Complete Lives Program" in which health care money is doled out to ppl according to how complete their lives are.

If your life is relatively complete, i.e. your productive years are behind you and you're over 65, then Dr. Emmanuel believes you should 'get' substantially less medical money than you probably are getting now, given private insurance and medicare and so forth. It's wrong, he says, for seniors to 'spend' so much money on their healthcare when they're not producing anything or adding to society. He believes they should have the courtesy to die and save the money to be spent on more PRODUCTIVE people, i.e. young people who can work and create wealth to tax.

The people who should get the most health care? Not infants, as you might first believe. Dr. Emmanuel says they haven't yet been educated and represent a substantial expense to the state before they'll be ready to be productive and make money to tax.

No, it's the high school senior who Dr. Emmanuel says should get the most money spent on his care. Because that person, already educated, has forty years of being productive, of making food or clothes or building things or inventing things, ahead of him or her.

Never mind that the high school senior is pretty much ironclad healthy in most cases and does not require very much health care.

It is normal and natural to get sick when you're older. that is WHY most of the money is spent when we're old. If we've paid into programs like medicare for forty years, why SHOULDN"T we get something out of it when we are in need?

Dr. Emmanuel says we shouldn't. Because we're not productive. Just dead weight. OUr humanity, our individuality, is dismissed and we are tossed out like sacks of trash to the dump.

This is the future vision of DOCTOR Ezekiel Emmanuel, brother to the White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel. It is of course also the future vision of Rahm, and Barack, and Nancy, and Harry.

As Robert B. Reich said in a speech to UCLA students in 2007, speaking as "that rare creature, an honest candidate telling you the truth", he admits that we can't afford to spend all that money at the end of your life to add months or a year to it, that you need to just die so we can save the money. This kind of honesty, he says, you'll never hear from a candidate because he could never get elected speaking like this.

When we are responsible for ourselves, we can spend our own money on our own health care if we want. It's our money. We earned it. If we want to try to live a month longer, it's up to us.

But when its a tax-n-spend government deal, government gets to decide whether you live or die. They will not be kind about it.

Google "Complete Lives Program", Eziel Emmanuel, MD. You will find the true blueprint for Obamacare.[/QUOTE]
Dave,
I think you are really smart...at least book smart, but I find it somewhat odd when someone blindly agrees with everything that a crackpot like Limbaugh has to say. I listen to Rush (for entertainment purposes only) every once in a while and I've heard this same spiel before...its alarmist bullsheet.

Dave you know how obnoxious Bill Maher is to you (and me for that matter). Well Rush Limbaugh is just as obnoxious and over the top as Bill Maher....They are the exact same.

I am 100% fiscal conservative, but somewhat socially liberal. I can see the BS from both parties. The world is not ending with this bill. I mean did the sky fall when they created medicare and medicaid?

[QUOTE=The Purist] I mean did the sky fall when they created medicare and medicaid?[/QUOTE]

Yes! Both programs are presently busted and Medicare is 40 TRILLION underwater in the next few years. Medicaid and Social Security are equally insolvent. We promised more than we had--as usual. And then congress has repeatedly extended both programs to millions who never paid a dime into them. For instance many immigrants come here, become naturalized, then bring their parents-- from the Phillipines, China, Mexico, all over latin America, etc. They apply to bring their extended families, in-laws and parents. They all qualify for SSI--and Medicaid (and welfare) if they are indigent, which is too often the case because they bring neither money nor education nor a viable trade. All they are expected to do is vote Democratic--like all dependents on the government reliably do.

Now this massive new health care entitlement will crush our economy. Several big employers like ATT and Caterpiller, etc. have already announced that they will need to radically CUT their support of retiree medical care-- since each one is now a far more expensive liability. They will CUT the number of employees for the same reason-- each one is a liability to their bottom line.

Beware of unintended consequences. Health care will add MILLIONS of unemployed--

Larry

Larry is actually talking sense for a change. In Oz we have the exact same problem of migrants coming out here with nothing to their name and no education or skills, then bringing out their aging parents who have even less to offer, but become an instant drain on our welfare and health systems. In Oz these new aged migrants (who have never contributed a cent in taxes) are entitled to an aged pension and up to $4,000 in health care immediately. This includes dental work so you know that every single one of them will use the whole entitlement. I'm a left wing socialist, but even I can see that the current system of handouts and healthcare to people who arrive from overseas with nothing, contribute nothing and will never contribute anything to the country is economic suicide. The way I see it is that there is a reason why these people have nothing to their names, it's because they are slack layabouts who will always try to scam their way through life getting something for nothing. Their own countries are onto them and give them nothing, but they absolutely scam the hell out of the generous welfare and health benefits of western countries. So what you end up with is ethnic enclaves who drain the economy and are an eyesore on the cultural landscape. Their own countries are more than glad to get rid of them, but I don't see why we should have to pick up the slack and give them a great life.

[QUOTE=Not a hacker]Larry is actually talking sense for a change.[/QUOTE]

Any time you start thinking that way, you need to give your head a shake.

:)

[QUOTE=The Purist] I find it somewhat odd when someone blindly agrees with everything that a crackpot like Limbaugh has to say. I listen to Rush (for entertainment purposes only) every once in a while and I've heard this same spiel before...its alarmist bullsheet.[/QUOTE]

I find it somewhat odd, and a bit insulting, when an opinion, carefully and coherently expressed, is described as blind agreement with someone else. Does this mean no opinion is valid unless it is not shared by anyone else? And for a guy who doesn't even KNOW me, it's a bit on the presumptuous side to definitively conclude that I am easily led, let alone BLINDLY following anyone for any reason.

I have never heard Rush discuss Ezekiel Emmanuel. That paper "The Complete Lives Program" I found and read, all by my wittle self. Robert Reich led me to it with his speech in California, during which the students CHEERED while he 'explained' that old folks need to just die to save the money for the young.

This crap means what it means, no matter who says so or does not say so. It is reality.

Sometimes alarmism is warranted by facts. When the brother of one of the most powerful men in government is a self-styled opinion leader in his field, and the government is acting radically in that field along the lines of that opinion, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the brother has some dammned INFLUENCE. And that guy thinks old sick people should just die so we can save money.

read the paper yourself. I read for myself, learn for myself, form my OWN opinions, and if someone else shares them, it is a mark of HIS intelligence and decency. Instead of deciding that I"m a follower, why not respond to the substance of my remarks? examine what I say, refute it with coherence, live and fight in the world of ideas.

It would be the more decent way of treating me.

[QUOTE=The Purist]
I am 100% fiscal conservative, but somewhat socially liberal. I can see the BS from both parties. The world is not ending with this bill. I mean did the sky fall when they created medicare and medicaid?[/QUOTE]

quick question. How does a fiscal conservative pay for the socially liberal policies? fiscal conservatives support reduced taxes and spending cuts in government.

The sky is falling on medicare and medicaid, like any other social program. they never do anything but grow in cost, because of human nature. Subsidize something and people use MORE OF IT. When medicare started, it used three or four times its budgeted cash in its first year, because the budget did not factor in that people would go to the doctor LOTS MORE OFTEN when it became subsidized.

Medicare is at present over ONE HUNDRED TIMES greater in spending than what it was forecast to be at this point. When does a 100% fiscal conservative like you pipe up and shout ENOUGH!?!?!?!?!

As Maggie said, the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.

YES

made it past 200... on a lamer thread like this, that's a GR achievement.

[QUOTE=daveperkins]YES

made it past 200... on a lamer thread like this, that's a GR achievement.[/QUOTE]

It's not much of an achievement for a Larryrsf thread. 99% of his threads reach >100 posts and some go on to exceed 200-300 posts.

For the rest of us that's a lifetime achievement but it's fairly run of the mill for Mr RSF.

[QUOTE=Kiwi Player]It's not much of an achievement for a Larryrsf thread. 99% of his threads reach >100 posts and some go on to exceed 200-300 posts.

For the rest of us that's a lifetime achievement but it's fairly run of the mill for Mr RSF.[/QUOTE]

hmm.. I guess I wasn't paying attention to Larry's threads.

I'm good with that.

[QUOTE=Kiwi Player]It's not much of an achievement for a Larryrsf thread. 99% of his threads reach >100 posts and some go on to exceed 200-300 posts.

For the rest of us that's a lifetime achievement but it's fairly run of the mill for Mr RSF.[/QUOTE]

Ol' Lar really is the King Midas of the century thread. He has certainly achieved effortless power when it comes to epic thread creation.
A couple of observations about some uncharacteristic Larrt behavior displayed in this thread.
Larry ususally doesn't respond directly to any questions, insults, or feedback. Yet he has done so several times in this thread. Quoting several responses.
Larry rarely acknowledges isults directly unless they come from AlanG, yet Larry called Lorenzo out, even calling him by name , no less.
I think Larry is finally comfortable calling GR his e-golf home.
Welcome aboard Larry.
He's going to be calling peoples' clubs gay in no time.

[QUOTE=Not a hacker]Larry is actually talking sense for a change. In Oz we have the exact same problem of migrants coming out here with nothing to their name and no education or skills, then bringing out their aging parents who have even less to offer, but become an instant drain on our welfare and health systems. In Oz these new aged migrants (who have never contributed a cent in taxes) are entitled to an aged pension and up to $4,000 in health care immediately. This includes dental work so you know that every single one of them will use the whole entitlement. I'm a left wing socialist, but even I can see that the current system of handouts and healthcare to people who arrive from overseas with nothing, contribute nothing and will never contribute anything to the country is economic suicide. The way I see it is that there is a reason why these people have nothing to their names, it's because they are slack layabouts who will always try to scam their way through life getting something for nothing. Their own countries are onto them and give them nothing, but they absolutely scam the hell out of the generous welfare and health benefits of western countries. So what you end up with is ethnic enclaves who drain the economy and are an eyesore on the cultural landscape. Their own countries are more than glad to get rid of them, but I don't see why we should have to pick up the slack and give them a great life.[/QUOTE]

We have a lot of experience with illegals here-- and while they are good workers as gardeners and domestics-- the real reason they are here is that they were losers in Mexico. Many are illerate in both languages. They can't read or write or speak English because they were illiterate in Spanish! They should fill out our forms and etc. to get a green card, but they never do, they always procrastinate until it is too late. They don't get a driver license, they don't get a business license, they don't buy insurance, they don't comply with any safety rules. They don't because they didn't do what they should have done there, and now they don't do what they should here either. Losers are losers. And many are losers because their parents were losers. Sorry folks, but them is the facts. America simply can't support th whole world. If we let this continue their numbers will swamp us--and pull us all down to 3d world levels. China will look down on us.

Larry

[QUOTE=Larryrsf]We have a lot of experience with illegals here-- and while they are good workers as gardeners and domestics-- the real reason they are here is that they were losers in Mexico. Many are illerate in both languages. They can't read or write or speak English because they were illiterate in Spanish! They should fill out our forms and etc. to get a green card, but they never do, they always procrastinate until it is too late. They don't get a driver license, they don't get a business license, they don't buy insurance, they don't comply with any safety rules. They don't because they didn't do what they should have done there, and now they don't do what they should here either. Losers are losers. And many are losers because their parents were losers. Sorry folks, but them is the facts. America simply can't support th whole world. If we let this continue their numbers will swamp us--and pull us all down to 3d world levels. China will look down on us.

Larry[/QUOTE]

Kick their asses Larry!!!!

[QUOTE=daveperkins]I find it somewhat odd, and a bit insulting, when an opinion, carefully and coherently expressed, is described as blind agreement with someone else. Does this mean no opinion is valid unless it is not shared by anyone else? And for a guy who doesn't even KNOW me, it's a bit on the presumptuous side to definitively conclude that I am easily led, let alone BLINDLY following anyone for any reason.

I have never heard Rush discuss Ezekiel Emmanuel. That paper "The Complete Lives Program" I found and read, all by my wittle self. Robert Reich led me to it with his speech in California, during which the students CHEERED while he 'explained' that old folks need to just die to save the money for the young.

This crap means what it means, no matter who says so or does not say so. It is reality.

Sometimes alarmism is warranted by facts. When the brother of one of the most powerful men in government is a self-styled opinion leader in his field, and the government is acting radically in that field along the lines of that opinion, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the brother has some dammned INFLUENCE. And that guy thinks old sick people should just die so we can save money.

read the paper yourself. I read for myself, learn for myself, form my OWN opinions, and if someone else shares them, it is a mark of HIS intelligence and decency. Instead of deciding that I"m a follower, why not respond to the substance of my remarks? examine what I say, refute it with coherence, live and fight in the world of ideas.

It would be the more decent way of treating me.[/QUOTE]
Sorry Dave. I really did hear the same spiel almost verbatim from Rush awhile ago.

I am a little confused. You are a Robert Reich follower?

Anyway, I am not huge on guilt by association...Look at the company we keep around here. I think the elderly deserve quality healthcare. But I do think there is a $hitload of waste taking place. People getting $15K CT scans for stomach aches. Part of its greed and part of it fear of malpractice. Anyway, spending tens or hundreds of thousands on treatments for the elderly are fine, but what about doctors running these treatments on the terminally ill?

[QUOTE=Larryrsf]We have a lot of experience with illegals here-- and while they are good workers as gardeners and domestics-- the real reason they are here is that they were losers in Mexico. Many are illerate in both languages. They can't read or write or speak English because they were illiterate in Spanish! They should fill out our forms and etc. to get a green card, but they never do, they always procrastinate until it is too late. They don't get a driver license, they don't get a business license, they don't buy insurance, they don't comply with any safety rules. They don't because they didn't do what they should have done there, and now they don't do what they should here either. Losers are losers. And many are losers because their parents were losers. Sorry folks, but them is the facts. America simply can't support th whole world. If we let this continue their numbers will swamp us--and pull us all down to 3d world levels. China will look down on us.

Larry[/QUOTE]
I can't believe I'm saying this but I agree with all of the above. The way things are going there is going to be a dramatic shift in the social order of the world. These second and third wolrd countries that keep sending us their losers are going to get stronger as they have less dead weight dragging them down, while our living standards will sink faster than the Titanic on the back of crippling debts from the financial burden of welfare and healthcare forced upon us by other countries rejects.

[QUOTE=The Purist]Sorry Dave. I really did hear the same spiel almost verbatim from Rush awhile ago.

I am a little confused. You are a Robert Reich follower?

Anyway, I am not huge on guilt by association...Look at the company we keep around here. I think the elderly deserve quality healthcare. But I do think there is a $hitload of waste taking place. People getting $15K CT scans for stomach aches. Part of its greed and part of it fear of malpractice. Anyway, spending tens or hundreds of thousands on treatments for the elderly are fine, but what about doctors running these treatments on the terminally ill?[/QUOTE]

"I think the elderly deserve quality healthcare."

Paid for by whom? That is the question, after all. Everyone thinks people 'deserve things'.. It's warm and fuzzy. And a bit simple...

"Part is greed, part is fear of malpractice"

which part is greed? who are the greedy ones? Are we really prepared to dictate the earnings of others based on our collective judgment that they make too much, that they are greedy? Good grief... talk about discouraging the pursuit of success, discouraging the entrepreneur from taking risks and creating wealth!

And of course, if people are afraid to prosper because of the millions of little Stalins pointing fingers at them, well then there will be ever fewer resources to give the elderly the health care they 'deserve'. Because wealth creation is the exclusive province of entrepreneurs, private enterprise, the citizen. Government cannot create wealth; it can only seize it, skim off 40% for 'expenses', and then distribute it to whoever is in favor. Government redistribution is destructive of wealth, not creative. People are poorer, collectively, when government pays for stuff than when individuals do.

If a person owns a health policy he has paid for all his life, a private policy with good contract terms he's paid high premiums for, and in his final months his policy will pay for treatments which might extend his life a bit, who am I to tell him no? It wasn't my money that paid his premiums, and it doesn't come out of my wallet when he gets 'futile' treatments. It is his life, and his choice, as it should be.

'what about doctors running these treatments on the terminally ill?" you ask. indeed. What about it? The question is, who is paying for it... If it is the public, then 'we the public' have a right to question and dispute all uses of public money. That is one major reason 'publicly financed health care' is a lousy idea, as it puts us all in the unpleasant position of seeing our neighbor as our financial liability. Got a fat neighbor? Threaten him, compel him to lose weight, because his early adult onset diabetes and high blood pressure is costing you, dammit!! You might not get your dialysis this week because the guy across the hall has drank himself into liver failure.. go give him a piece of your mind! Or, if he's old, maybe he should just die and save us the money!

With government in charge, it isn't 'some people' who will be permitted end of life futile treatments, it is NO people. That, for me, is [B][I]not a net improvement on the humanity scale, it is a degradation and a tragedy. [/I][/B]

Purist-- this is not a "spiel" and I object to the term. This is ideas, carefully thought out, defensible, and sound. One proof of their strength is that you keep changing the subject. :-)

What do you mean by 'follower'? You're not confused, just crafty. :-)

I am not a fanboy of Reich but I do try to know what he talks about. Like many on their side, he loves the sound of his own voice, and admits what they really think and believe if he is in a comfortable situation speaking with 'fellow travelers'. The left seems to believe YouTube hasn't been invented yet. :-))

Health care is a service. "goods and services" are things people pay other people to do or to hand over. It is a market transaction. A "right" is generally the opposite of a 'good or service', that is to say a right to NOT HAVE BAD THINGS DONE TO YOU... the right to not be killed and not be enslaved and not be oppressed among them ([I]life, liberty, pursuit of happiness[/I])...

we have positive rights too, like peacably assembling to petition the govt for redress of grievances, etc. But even this is based on the right NOT to be arrested for opposing govt.

One thing the constitution never even came CLOSE to acknowledging is one person's right to another person's money.

That is what this is, this 'right to health care'. It is like saying we have a right to own things even if we can't pay for them, by taking the money to buy them out of the wallets of people we don't know, aren't related to and will never meet. I firmly believe this 'right' violates my rights. My right to keep the fruits of my labor. My right to economic liberty, to buy and sell and earn and keep and own things.

If the fruits of my labor belong to another by RIGHT, then I AM A SLAVE. This goes back to ancient Greece, as philosophers discussed what it means to be a person in a civilized society..

It is simple stuff, the right to keep the fruits of your labor, and high minded socialist talk about collective rights cannot overturn the rights of individuals.

"the rights of man', as the French revolution promoted, do not supercede the rights of MEN.

Or if they do, then we are all slaves and drones and victims of govt. Sure, tax rates are only 30% now, and the impulse is to say 'so what, you get to keep 70%, quit whining'. But what is the 'right tax rate'? How high must taxes go before people feel as if their rights are being violated? If 'seniors deserve quality healthcare' and that costs the taxpayer 90% instead of 30%, can he then be justified in revolting? Or is it 95%? When one man's rights include the right to another man's money, what if there are 100 men needing it for every one producing it?

([I]I do not object to the fact that govt is necessary or that taxes are necessary.. it's all about the 'evil' part of [B]necessary evil[/B][/I])

When social security was created by FDR, the soc. sec. tax on 16 workers would keep one retiree going. Shared burdens, and all that lefty talk.

Today one soc. sec. recipient gets his money from THREE workers. How long until it's 1-1? Or one worker to TWO retirees? How much of other people's money is a citizen entitled to? How hard must a worker work to make sure he produces enough so that others can have their 'rights'?

But government interference and hamfisted takeovers also constitute "market forces", albeit of an unpleasant and counterproductive kind. Everything that affects a market is a market force.

And the market always responds to market forces. Central command economies never work, no matter what their purported subjects. Government Health Care will lead to less availability, higher prices and poorer quality. It is inevitable. It is a matter of time. It is ECONOMIC LAW. And it will kill people in the end, some even deliberately by govt rationing decisions.

Less availability means, in a leftist society, that preference will be given to 'the productive', those who can continue to put in the money to pay for the health care, and of course there will be preference given to 'friends of govt'.. Old people will eventually, by necessity, be left in the lurch. It is fact that this is a part of present govt thinking, even if they won't admit it.

But Obama has said "we'd probably tell them to just take the painkiller" when asked about a surgery for an old person, remember that? And Reich 'admits the truth' while playing the fictional 'honest politician'. And Zeke Emmanuel writes the Complete Lives Plan detailing rationing of care to the elderly, defending it on efficiency grounds.

Just take the painkiller, grandpa. No surgery for you. Get on outta here... we need that money for the younger productive folks.

It's all out there for those who don't simply refuse to see it. This is not defensible, not good on any level.

[QUOTE=daveperkins]
"Part is greed, part is fear of malpractice"

which part is greed? who are the greedy ones? Are we really prepared to dictate the earnings of others based on our collective judgment that they make too much, that they are greedy? Good grief... talk about discouraging the pursuit of success, discouraging the entrepreneur from taking risks and creating wealth!

And of course, if people are afraid to prosper because of the millions of little Stalins pointing fingers at them, well then there will be ever fewer resources to give the elderly the health care they 'deserve'. Because wealth creation is the exclusive province of entrepreneurs, private enterprise, the citizen. Government cannot create wealth; it can only seize it, skim off 40% for 'expenses', and then distribute it to whoever is in favor. Government redistribution is destructive of wealth, not creative. People are poorer, collectively, when government pays for stuff than when individuals do.

If a person owns a health policy he has paid for all his life, a private policy with good contract terms he's paid high premiums for, and in his final months his policy will pay for treatments which might extend his life a bit, who am I to tell him no? It wasn't my money that paid his premiums, and it doesn't come out of my wallet when he gets 'futile' treatments. It is his life, and his choice, as it should be.

[/QUOTE]
I was speaking of doctor's running unnecessary tests. MRI's and CT's for example, cost boat loads of money and are very common. I don't know if doctors are so quick to order expensive tests, because it makes them a lot of money, or because they are afraid of getting sued...either way insurance companies will gladly encourage doctors to run up huge bills....because insurance companies get paid based on percentages. The greater the overall cost of medical treatment, the more they can charge. America's healthcare costs like twice as much as the next highest country...think about it 5% of 200 billion pays a lot more than 5% of 100 billion.

[QUOTE=The Purist]I was speaking of doctor's running unnecessary tests. MRI's and CT's for example, cost boat loads of money and are very common. I don't know if doctors are so quick to order expensive tests, because it makes them a lot of money, or because they are afraid of getting sued...either way insurance companies will gladly encourage doctors to run up huge bills....because insurance companies get paid based on percentages. The greater the overall cost of medical treatment, the more they can charge. America's healthcare costs like twice as much as the next highest country...think about it 5% of 200 billion pays a lot more than 5% of 100 billion.[/QUOTE]

MRI and CT is a way of seeing into the body without CUTTING into the body and makes diagnosis and relative certainty of treatment MASSIVELY easier on the doctor. MRI and CT have made millions of surgeries unnecessary by removing the need for EXpLORATORY surgery... remember that antique term? If, instead of MRI and CT, doctors had performed exploratory surgery on every patient who would have gotten the test instead, how much would THAT have cost? Or, to save money and risk from these surgeries, doctors had not done anything to find out what's really wrong, and simply guessed like they used to.. how much in suffering would that have cost?

[B][I]I don't know what you mean by 'insurance companies get paid by percentages'.[/I][/B] They get paid by customers' premiums. My wife is a benefits administrator with a major corporation. I know how these things work. The premiums are determined by the world's most complete and complex database, called 'actuarial data', which predicts with high accuracy what costs will be in the future based on what they've been recently, and charges premiums based on their predicted costs. Also, they're limited by many US government rules, including the rule that they must set aside 65% of their money to pay claims, so that they must administer their company and make a profit with the other 35%.

[B]And Obamacare now legislates the set-aside is 85% instead of 65%, meaning now insurance companies will have to find a way to be profitable on 15% of their income.
[/B]
Yes, this means Obamacare will force insurance companies to raise their premiums, thus becoming 'more evil' in the carefully engineered public view. But it is govt regulation that causes this. And it also means many, if not all (eventually) private insurance companies will fail and go away.

The 'preexisting condition' crap will put the last nail in the coffin of insurance companies. If you wait til your house is on fire to by home insurance, or til you've just had an accident to buy car insurance, the insurance company will receive one premium and immediately have to outlay thousands, or hundreds of thousands, to fix your car or rebuild your house. And they will shortly go out of business. No insurance company would accept this, but government has now forced it on them. Obama has said he wants universal single payer (govt) health insurance, and that it would take him some time to 'eliminate employer based private insurance". That is a direct quote from a campaign speech. He intends to eliminate it. This bill will accomplish that in time. it is duplicitous for him to pretend this is not his plan.

It has always been simple personal responsibility.. buy health insurance when young, or take a job that provides it, so that when something happens to you, you're insured. Those who didn't do this while healthy and productive are simply IRRESPONSIBLE. If they are truly poor, that's what medicaid is for. And if they don't qualify for medicaid because their income is too high, they should have bought insurance! Cell phone? NO. Cable tv? NO. IPOD? NO! We all have budgets and should live by them, and if insurance is expensive, do without some other stuff. Do the world a favor and PRIORITIZE, choose responsibly. I am not against helping people in need, but the government should not have the power to seize one person's money and give it to another person who has a need directly related to his own REFUSAL TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIMSELF.

"ordering expensive tests"

there are no cheap tests to determine if you have a tumor on your ovary, or if your medial collateral ligament is ruptured or just torn. It takes either an MRI or exploratory surgery. Doctors don't make money on MRI unless they happen to own an MRI machine, and most doctors don't. "ordering expensive tests" does not make doctors more rich and more evil. It just makes them more careful, which lawyers have driven....

Its pretty obvious Dave your not self employed, or a struggling sub contractor, or part of the millions of jobs that have been lost in are country alone. I look at what created this mess in the world economys, and it boils down to simple greed, that makes Bernie Madoff look like a kid stealing candy from Walmart. Just to clarify doing without cable, or an ipod, or internet, anyone of them for a year, would not touch one month of insurance cost for an average family. I have witnessed an incredible shift in the economy, and the standard of living accross the board has for middle America WENT DOWN. Its time they got something back. Are skyrocketing health care cost gonna go down anytime soon? H@ll no, creating a larger gap in who can afford it, and who cant. Accept the fact that healthcare reform is the law.

[QUOTE=Not a hacker]I can't believe I'm saying this but I agree with all of the above. The way things are going there is going to be a dramatic shift in the social order of the world. These second and third wolrd countries that keep sending us their losers are going to get stronger as they have less dead weight dragging them down, while our living standards will sink faster than the Titanic on the back of crippling debts from the financial burden of welfare and healthcare forced upon us by other countries rejects.[/QUOTE]

Read WSJ Friday-- for the horror story that unions have created through the public employee's unions. (Why do public employees need a union?) They don't. But SEIU, et. al. have created an unsustainable situation in nearly every city, county, and state. Just average people with just average education and ability are retiring in their early 50s with a fantastic pension and "Cadillac" health care for themselves and family for life. Often their pension is $100K+. And then they are "rehired" where they were working-- and are paid well and start building up ANOTHER retirement pension. Many are taking down $200k+. They hit the lotto! Of course that is well over nearly double what anyone in the private sector earns. And of course the cities, counties, and states simply can't pay it. The judges support these union "contracts" because they are in on it too! But it will all come crashing down soon--

Larry

[QUOTE=daveperkins]MRI and CT is a way of seeing into the body without CUTTING into the body and makes diagnosis and relative certainty of treatment MASSIVELY easier on the doctor. MRI and CT have made millions of surgeries unnecessary by removing the need for EXpLORATORY surgery... remember that antique term? If, instead of MRI and CT, doctors had performed exploratory surgery on every patient who would have gotten the test instead, how much would THAT have cost? Or, to save money and risk from these surgeries, doctors had not done anything to find out what's really wrong, and simply guessed like they used to.. how much in suffering would that have cost?

[B][I]I don't know what you mean by 'insurance companies get paid by percentages'.[/I][/B] They get paid by customers' premiums. My wife is a benefits administrator with a major corporation. I know how these things work. The premiums are determined by the world's most complete and complex database, called 'actuarial data', which predicts with high accuracy what costs will be in the future based on what they've been recently, and charges premiums based on their predicted costs. Also, they're limited by many US government rules, including the rule that they must set aside 65% of their money to pay claims, so that they must administer their company and make a profit with the other 35%.

[B]And Obamacare now legislates the set-aside is 85% instead of 65%, meaning now insurance companies will have to find a way to be profitable on 15% of their income.
[/B]
Yes, this means Obamacare will force insurance companies to raise their premiums, thus becoming 'more evil' in the carefully engineered public view. But it is govt regulation that causes this. And it also means many, if not all (eventually) private insurance companies will fail and go away.

The 'preexisting condition' crap will put the last nail in the coffin of insurance companies. If you wait til your house is on fire to by home insurance, or til you've just had an accident to buy car insurance, the insurance company will receive one premium and immediately have to outlay thousands, or hundreds of thousands, to fix your car or rebuild your house. And they will shortly go out of business. No insurance company would accept this, but government has now forced it on them. Obama has said he wants universal single payer (govt) health insurance, and that it would take him some time to 'eliminate employer based private insurance". That is a direct quote from a campaign speech. He intends to eliminate it. This bill will accomplish that in time. it is duplicitous for him to pretend this is not his plan.

It has always been simple personal responsibility.. buy health insurance when young, or take a job that provides it, so that when something happens to you, you're insured. Those who didn't do this while healthy and productive are simply IRRESPONSIBLE. If they are truly poor, that's what medicaid is for. And if they don't qualify for medicaid because their income is too high, they should have bought insurance! Cell phone? NO. Cable tv? NO. IPOD? NO! We all have budgets and should live by them, and if insurance is expensive, do without some other stuff. Do the world a favor and PRIORITIZE, choose responsibly. I am not against helping people in need, but the government should not have the power to seize one person's money and give it to another person who has a need directly related to his own REFUSAL TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIMSELF.

"ordering expensive tests"

there are no cheap tests to determine if you have a tumor on your ovary, or if your medial collateral ligament is ruptured or just torn. It takes either an MRI or exploratory surgery. Doctors don't make money on MRI unless they happen to own an MRI machine, and most doctors don't. "ordering expensive tests" does not make doctors more rich and more evil. It just makes them more careful, which lawyers have driven....[/QUOTE]

The immediate result will be massive new unemployment as companies study the ramifications of Obamacare--and realize their bottom line is going to take a big hit. Since they are not earning more profits--they WILL reduce personnel. Watch for big layoffs and cutbacks to part-time and/or contract workers. There will be HUGE "unintended consequences" that should sweep those morons from public office. ATT and Caterpiller and dozens of others are announcing already...

Larry

[QUOTE=The Purist]I was speaking of doctor's running unnecessary tests. MRI's and CT's for example, cost boat loads of money and are very common. I don't know if doctors are so quick to order expensive tests, because it makes them a lot of money, or because they are afraid of getting sued...either way insurance companies will gladly encourage doctors to run up huge bills....because insurance companies get paid based on percentages. The greater the overall cost of medical treatment, the more they can charge. America's healthcare costs like twice as much as the next highest country...think about it 5% of 200 billion pays a lot more than 5% of 100 billion.[/QUOTE]

notice that there is NO meaningful restriction on trial lawyers' ability to sue doctors and hospitals. The trial bar paid Obama and the Democrats in congress BIG BUCKS for their refusal to include Tort Reform. They got their money's worth.

Larry

Larry,
I agree that the weight transfer and the sequencing thereof is the most difficult aspect of the golf swing. Are you trying to gradually increase the speed of your slo-mo practice, if so, in what kind of increments? Do you use, for example, a metronome. Also, there is momentum in a full swing that is not present in a slo-mo drill. How do you compensate for this?

[QUOTE=daveperkins]quick question. [B]How does a fiscal conservative pay for the socially liberal policies?[/B] fiscal conservatives support reduced taxes and spending cuts in government.

The sky is falling on medicare and medicaid, like any other social program. they never do anything but grow in cost, because of human nature. Subsidize something and people use MORE OF IT. When medicare started, it used three or four times its budgeted cash in its first year, because the budget did not factor in that people would go to the doctor LOTS MORE OFTEN when it became subsidized.

Medicare is at present over ONE HUNDRED TIMES greater in spending than what it was forecast to be at this point. When does a 100% fiscal conservative like you pipe up and shout ENOUGH!?!?!?!?!

As Maggie said, the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.[/QUOTE]

I think medicare part d (prescription drug coverage) was rammed down our throats by republic run government just like this health care bill was rammed down our throats by the dem run government. So, tell me how they are different? Where was the outrage from the conservatives then? No death threats to the Republican Congress persons from this bill. Tell me which side is fiscally conservative? But how soon we forget of the GOP's crappy bill that was hot off the press and voted without any of their members reading the whole bill but when the Dem's did it it's a big evil according to the GOP. Give me a break Dave. Both sides are evil.

The only other point I'll make is that you claim to "know" how insurance works because your wife is a HR benefits administrator/manager is a crazy. The older and wiser I get the more I understand I know little. The minute I claim I "know" and express myself in the way you just did is the minute I should be dope slapped because I'm probably wrong and ignorant.

My final and strongest point that your argument is probably flawed is your debating partner is LarryRSF.

[QUOTE=daveperkins]MRI and CT is a way of seeing into the body without CUTTING into the body and makes diagnosis and relative certainty of treatment MASSIVELY easier on the doctor. MRI and CT have made millions of surgeries unnecessary by removing the need for EXpLORATORY surgery... remember that antique term? If, instead of MRI and CT, doctors had performed exploratory surgery on every patient who would have gotten the test instead, how much would THAT have cost? Or, to save money and risk from these surgeries, doctors had not done anything to find out what's really wrong, and simply guessed like they used to.. how much in suffering would that have cost?

[B][I]I don't know what you mean by 'insurance companies get paid by percentages'.[/I][/B] They get paid by customers' premiums. My wife is a benefits administrator with a major corporation. I know how these things work. The premiums are determined by the world's most complete and complex database, called 'actuarial data', which predicts with high accuracy what costs will be in the future based on what they've been recently, and charges premiums based on their predicted costs. Also, they're limited by many US government rules, including the rule that they must set aside 65% of their money to pay claims, so that they must administer their company and make a profit with the other 35%.

[B]And Obamacare now legislates the set-aside is 85% instead of 65%, meaning now insurance companies will have to find a way to be profitable on 15% of their income.
[/B]
Yes, this means Obamacare will force insurance companies to raise their premiums, thus becoming 'more evil' in the carefully engineered public view. But it is govt regulation that causes this. And it also means many, if not all (eventually) private insurance companies will fail and go away.

The 'preexisting condition' crap will put the last nail in the coffin of insurance companies. If you wait til your house is on fire to by home insurance, or til you've just had an accident to buy car insurance, the insurance company will receive one premium and immediately have to outlay thousands, or hundreds of thousands, to fix your car or rebuild your house. And they will shortly go out of business. No insurance company would accept this, but government has now forced it on them. Obama has said he wants universal single payer (govt) health insurance, and that it would take him some time to 'eliminate employer based private insurance". That is a direct quote from a campaign speech. He intends to eliminate it. This bill will accomplish that in time. it is duplicitous for him to pretend this is not his plan.

It has always been simple personal responsibility.. buy health insurance when young, or take a job that provides it, so that when something happens to you, you're insured. Those who didn't do this while healthy and productive are simply IRRESPONSIBLE. If they are truly poor, that's what medicaid is for. And if they don't qualify for medicaid because their income is too high, they should have bought insurance! Cell phone? NO. Cable tv? NO. IPOD? NO! We all have budgets and should live by them, and if insurance is expensive, do without some other stuff. Do the world a favor and PRIORITIZE, choose responsibly. I am not against helping people in need, but the government should not have the power to seize one person's money and give it to another person who has a need directly related to his own REFUSAL TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIMSELF.

"ordering expensive tests"

there are no cheap tests to determine if you have a tumor on your ovary, or if your medial collateral ligament is ruptured or just torn. It takes either an MRI or exploratory surgery. Doctors don't make money on MRI unless they happen to own an MRI machine, and most doctors don't. "ordering expensive tests" does not make doctors more rich and more evil. It just makes them more careful, which lawyers have driven....[/QUOTE]
Dave, I know MRI's and CT scans are awesome and work well. I only have a problem when they order these overpriced tests for people who really don't need them. When my wife was pregnant they ran a test where the chances of a complication was 1 in 5000, and the ordered us like 6 additional ultra sounds. Insurance covers these extra visits, but I was tempted to tell him to phuck off. Everything I read online showed that it was basically a huge waste to get these extra ultra sounds. In my opinion this doctor was a sleeze and trying to grab himself more cash.

The Healthcare industry is in real trouble. This industry, like pretty much every other industry in America, has bubbled up too big to sustain itself. If you think it was bad when the real estate bubble burst, I promise none of us want to see the day when the healthcare bubble bursts. This thing needs to be blown up and corrected before it reaches the point where people just stop paying. There will be a lot of money lost and a lot of people are going to lose their jobs, that is just the way it goes. I'm in the construction industry...our industry was bubbled up mostly due to the bubble in commercial real estate. I am not mad at the government for letting the bubble pop...it had to...it wasn't sustainable and the numbers didn't add up.

[QUOTE=daveperkins]It has always been simple personal responsibility.. buy health insurance when young, or take a job that provides it, so that when something happens to you, you're insured. Those who didn't do this while healthy and productive are simply IRRESPONSIBLE. If they are truly poor, that's what medicaid is for. And if they don't qualify for medicaid because their income is too high, they should have bought insurance! Cell phone? NO. Cable tv? NO. IPOD? NO! We all have budgets and should live by them, and if insurance is expensive, do without some other stuff. Do the world a favor and PRIORITIZE, choose responsibly. I am not against helping people in need, but the government should not have the power to seize one person's money and give it to another person who has a need directly related to his own REFUSAL TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIMSELF.[/QUOTE]
This is the heart of the problem. I know a couple that supposedly could not afford health insurance. However, they could afford a 60" TV, 2 personal Blackberries, iPods, $100+/month for HD cable, $200/month gym memberships, $200+/month in cell phone bills, $60/month high speed internet, $200+/month for tennis lessons/courts/etc, and the list goes on. They had the audacity to complain when an ambulance was going to bill them $800 to take the wife to the hospital when she had an allergic reaction. They paid $0 for insurance, but were outraged that it would cost $800 to get her to a hospital and possibly save her life. Guess who they both voted for last presidential election? I'll give you a hint, it rhymes with 'yo mama'. Now that this health care 'reform' has passed, we are all going to be paying more for insurance and treatment. Now they will be forced to buy insurance and it will cost more than it would have before this clusterf*ck of a bill... Nice going, freakin' libs!

[QUOTE=The Purist]Dave, I know MRI's and CT scans are awesome and work well. I only have a problem when they order these overpriced tests for people who really don't need them. When my wife was pregnant they ran a test where the chances of a complication was 1 in 5000, and the ordered us like 6 additional ultra sounds. ... [B]In my opinion this doctor was a sleeze and trying to grab himself more cash.[/B][/QUOTE]
It's more likely he was trying to cover his ass so you couldn't sue him for malpractice. OB/GYN's pay super high premiums for malpractice insurance, possibly the highest of all doctors. There is nothing in the new health care LAW to restrict damages or deter people from filing frivolous law suits.

[QUOTE=Larryrsf]Read WSJ Friday-- for the horror story that unions have created through the public employee's unions. (Why do public employees need a union?) They don't. But SEIU, et. al. have created an unsustainable situation in nearly every city, county, and state. Just average people with just average education and ability are retiring in their early 50s with a fantastic pension and "Cadillac" health care for themselves and family for life. Often their pension is $100K+. [B]And then they are "rehired" where they were working-- and are paid well and start building up ANOTHER retirement pension.[/B] Many are taking down $200k+. They hit the lotto! Of course that is well over nearly double what anyone in the private sector earns. And of course the cities, counties, and states simply can't pay it. The judges support these union "contracts" because they are in on it too! But it will all come crashing down soon--

Larry[/QUOTE]
False. I've had 3 clients with SEIU employees and I'm well versed in benefits/retirement systems like OPERS, KERS, etc. that SIEU employees receive. Rehired retirees are not allowed to contribute or draw on another pension. You cannot have 2 pensions with the same retirement system. None of those SIEU people make anywhere near $200K. They are mostly hourly clerical staff and low level people. Managers are an unprotected class of employees meaning they cannot organize or join any existing unions.
I will not get into just how terrible these unions are, because they are absolutely atrocious, but you are way off.

[QUOTE=Horseballs]False. I've had 3 clients with SEIU employees and I'm well versed in benefits/retirement systems like OPERS, KERS, etc. that SIEU employees receive. Rehired retirees are not allowed to contribute or draw on another pension. You cannot have 2 pensions with the same retirement system. None of those SIEU people make anywhere near $200K. They are mostly hourly clerical staff and low level people. Managers are an unprotected class of employees meaning they cannot organize or join any existing unions.
I will not get into just how terrible these unions are, because they are absolutely atrocious, but you are way off.[/QUOTE]

It's unfortunate that you would introduce purported "facts" like this. Larry, ignore all of this (like I have to tell him that).

[QUOTE=poe4soul]I think medicare part d (prescription drug coverage) was rammed down our throats by republic run government just like this health care bill was rammed down our throats by the dem run government. So, tell me how they are different? Where was the outrage from the conservatives then? No death threats to the Republican Congress persons from this bill. Tell me which side is fiscally conservative? But how soon we forget of the GOP's crappy bill that was hot off the press and voted without any of their members reading the whole bill but when the Dem's did it it's a big evil according to the GOP. Give me a break Dave. Both sides are evil.

The only other point I'll make is that you claim to "know" how insurance works because your wife is a HR benefits administrator/manager is a crazy. The older and wiser I get the more I understand I know little. The minute I claim I "know" and express myself in the way you just did is the minute I should be dope slapped because I'm probably wrong and ignorant.

My final and strongest point that your argument is probably flawed is your debating partner is LarryRSF.[/QUOTE]

I'm not a 'republican', I"m a conservative. Part D happened because there were no conservatives on the Hill.

I don't 'claim' to know how it works, Poe baby, I KNOW. The day I console myself by abandoning any possible increase of knowledge, as you seem to have done in this post, is the minute I jump in a water hazard and drown myself. Some things are knowable, understandable, expressable, arguable. I don't argue things about which I have no knowledge. But i'm always ready to defend the things I know, the ideas I understand.

With principles, you get timelessness. "Thou shalt not steal" has always been true and always will be. Stealing is wrong. When was it ever 'half wrong' or 'sort of wrong' or not wrong at all? Not in human history.

Our present problems stem from the kind of soft-spined subjectivism which pulls us back from knowledge by telling us 'it's complicated, stay humble, don't claim to know anything', yada yada yada.

It is true that sometimes the people claiming to know something are full of sheite.

But sometimes they actually DO know something.

It's risky to dismiss all of the 'sure' people BECAUSE they're sure.

Sometimes they're right. :-))

[QUOTE=Horseballs]False. I've had 3 clients with SEIU employees and I'm well versed in benefits/retirement systems like OPERS, KERS, etc. that SIEU employees receive. Rehired retirees are not allowed to contribute or draw on another pension. You cannot have 2 pensions with the same retirement system. None of those SIEU people make anywhere near $200K. They are mostly hourly clerical staff and low level people. Managers are an unprotected class of employees meaning they cannot organize or join any existing unions.
I will not get into just how terrible these unions are, because they are absolutely atrocious, but you are way off.[/QUOTE]

WSJ was talking about City, County, state, and federal union employees, MANY of whom make FAR MORE than $100k and get early retirement with big pensions, some 100% or more of last year's earnings. Some retire early and then return to the same job again --and start building another pension file again. Either that or WSJ printed a false piece. It is outrageous and should spark a taxpayer revolt.

Larry

The ObamaCare Writedowns (Wall Street Journal)

The corporate damage rolls in, and Democrats are shocked!

ObamaCare passed Congress in its final form on Thursday night, and the returns are already rolling in. Yesterday AT&T announced that it will be forced to make a $1 billion writedown due solely to the health bill, in what has become a wave of such corporate losses.

This wholesale destruction of wealth and capital came with more than ample warning. Turning over every couch cushion to make their new entitlement look affordable under Beltway accounting rules, Democrats decided to raise taxes on companies that do the public service of offering prescription drug benefits to their retirees instead of dumping them into Medicare. We and others warned this would lead to AT&T-like results, but like so many other ObamaCare objections Democrats waved them off as self-serving or "political."

Perhaps that explains why the Administration is now so touchy. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke took to the White House blog to write that while ObamaCare is great for business, "In the last few days, though, we have seen a couple of companies imply that reform will raise costs for them." In a Thursday interview on CNBC, Mr. Locke said "for them to come out, I think is premature and irresponsible."

Meanwhile, Henry Waxman and House Democrats announced yesterday that they will haul these companies in for an April 21 hearing because their judgment "appears to conflict with independent analyses, which show that the new law will expand coverage and bring down costs."

In other words, shoot the messenger. Black-letter financial accounting rules require that corporations immediately restate their earnings to reflect the present value of their long-term health liabilities, including a higher tax burden. Should these companies have played chicken with the Securities and Exchange Commission to avoid this politically inconvenient reality? Democrats don't like what their bill is doing in the real world, so they now want to intimidate CEOs into keeping quiet.

On top of AT&T's $1 billion, the writedown wave so far includes Deere & Co., $150 million; Caterpillar, $100 million; AK Steel, $31 million; 3M, $90 million; and Valero Energy, up to $20 million. Verizon has also warned its employees about its new higher health-care costs, and there will be many more in the coming days and weeks.

As Joe Biden might put it, this is a big, er, deal for shareholders and the economy. The consulting firm Towers Watson estimates that the total hit this year will reach nearly $14 billion, unless corporations cut retiree drug benefits when their labor contracts let them.

Meanwhile, John DiStaso of the New Hampshire Union Leader reported this week that ObamaCare could cost the Granite State's major ski resorts as much as $1 million in fines, because they hire large numbers of seasonal workers without offering health benefits. "The choices are pretty clear, either increase prices or cut costs, which could mean hiring fewer workers next winter," he wrote.

The Democratic political calculation with ObamaCare is the proverbial boiling frog: Gradually introduce a health-care entitlement by hiding the true costs, hook the middle class on new subsidies until they become unrepealable, but try to delay the adverse consequences and major new tax hikes so voters don't make the connection between their policy and the economic wreckage. But their bill was such a shoddy, jerry-rigged piece of work that the damage is coming sooner than even some critics expected.

---------------

Just the beginning of the "unintended consequences" that will accrue from Obamacare. The Obama administration would not listen to the many many warnings.

Larry

[QUOTE=daveperkins]I'm not a 'republican', I"m a conservative. Part D happened because there were no conservatives on the Hill.

I don't 'claim' to know how it works, Poe baby, I KNOW. The day I console myself by abandoning any possible increase of knowledge, as you seem to have done in this post, is the minute I jump in a water hazard and drown myself. Some things are knowable, understandable, expressable, arguable. I don't argue things about which I have no knowledge. But i'm always ready to defend the things I know, the ideas I understand.

With principles, you get timelessness. "Thou shalt not steal" has always been true and always will be. Stealing is wrong. When was it ever 'half wrong' or 'sort of wrong' or not wrong at all? Not in human history.

Our present problems stem from the kind of soft-spined subjectivism which pulls us back from knowledge by telling us 'it's complicated, stay humble, don't claim to know anything', yada yada yada.

It is true that sometimes the people claiming to know something are full of sheite.

But sometimes they actually DO know something.

It's risky to dismiss all of the 'sure' people BECAUSE they're sure.

Sometimes they're right. :-))[/QUOTE]

Then there is "Do not covet." We've seemed to forget this one in America as we go about our capitalism (read greed).

Well I'm sure that you don't know as much as you profess. So where does that leave us? I'm not exactly a daisy here dave but I just don't regurgitate one parties side either. All of your talking points are verbatim from the GOP book. It is a very complicated system you're talking about. You are counting on the private side telling you the truth about many things. I don't know if you got the new flash but many business don't disclose everything they know or all of their earnings. I might be wrong but I doubt they're being 100% honest. Likewise the government is just the pawns of the players with money.

Again Dave don't get me wrong. I'm not for this health care system that just became law but I also don't believe some of the answers you've promoted would get us there either. It's more in line with business but it's not balanced by any means.

Since you're a conservative and not a republican I guess you're a registered independent?

[QUOTE=poe4soul]Then there is "Do not covet." We've seemed to forget this one in America as we go about our capitalism (read greed).

Well I'm sure that you don't know as much as you profess. So where does that leave us? I'm not exactly a daisy here dave but I just don't regurgitate one parties side either. All of your talking points are verbatim from the GOP book. It is a very complicated system you're talking about. You are counting on the private side telling you the truth about many things. I don't know if you got the new flash but many business don't disclose everything they know or all of their earnings. I might be wrong but I doubt they're being 100% honest. Likewise the government is just the pawns of the players with money.

Again Dave don't get me wrong. I'm not for this health care system that just became law but I also don't believe some of the answers you've promoted would get us there either. It's more in line with business but it's not balanced by any means.

Since you're a conservative and not a republican I guess you're a registered independent?[/QUOTE]
So I was listening to my local Rush wannabe on the way home today, and he actually made a really good non partisan point. He talked about how corrupt both parties had become. His argument was that most politicians start out with the best of intentions, but most of them get addicted to the politician lifestyle...always getting wined and dined...they become lifetime politicians who will sell there souls to stay in power. His argument was that no politician should ever be allowed to stay in any office more than 4 years...He made some good points.

[QUOTE=The Purist]So I was listening to my local Rush wannabe on the way home today, and he actually made a really good non partisan point. He talked about how corrupt both parties had become. His argument was that most politicians start out with the best of intentions, but most of them get addicted to the politician lifestyle...always getting wined and dined...they become lifetime politicians who will sell there souls to stay in power. His argument was that no politician should ever be allowed to stay in any office more than 4 years...He made some good points.[/QUOTE]
He sounds like he's proposing a true democracy. Ancient Athens, who invented modern democracy, had a similar method to this. The parlaiment would me made up of elected citizens who would sit for one term only, I think it may have been 2 years but not sure. They would then go back to their other life and get on with things til the next time it was their turn to be elected. There is nothing that even remotely resembles a true democracy in the modern world.

And they wrote back then that in a democracy--when more than half the people learn that they can vote themselves money from the treasury--the republic cannot exist longer.

And we may be there. 55% voted for Obama. They voted for government to take from those who earn and give to those who don't-- "from each according to his ability and to each according to his need." That is classic Communism. It has never worked anywhere--because it kills human nature. When society dampens the incentive of the very very few champions among us, they will stop--and we all lose. Howard Hughes hired 25,000 engineers.

Larry

[QUOTE=Larryrsf]And they wrote back then that in a democracy--when more than half the people learn that they can vote themselves money from the treasury--the republic cannot exist longer.

And we may be there. 55% voted for Obama. They voted for government to take from those who earn and give to those who don't-- "from each according to his ability and to each according to his need." That is classic Communism. It has never worked anywhere--because it kills human nature. When society dampens the incentive of the very very few champions among us, they will stop--and we all lose. Howard Hughes hired 25,000 engineers.

Larry[/QUOTE]

Kick all of their asses Larry!

You have rendered them speechless!

[COLOR="Red"]Its pretty obvious Dave your not self employed, or a struggling sub contractor, or part of the millions of jobs that have been lost in are country alone.[/COLOR]
[I]
So, my decades of six and seven day work weeks, my several years of minimum wage, my moving around the country at the drop of a hat, my HUGE personal financial risk to become a partner in a radio station and my four years of sleepless nights over grinding finances, that's all just... luck? Good fortune, yep.. could have happened to anyone. I don't really know what it's like to work, after all... or lose a job.. no, the small town disc jockey's life is a charmed one, that's for sure... all golf and parties.. I have no idea what its like to suffer or struggle or make hard decisions.

come on, 12S... . that's rough. You don't really know anything about me.[/I]

[COLOR="Red"]I look at what created this mess in the world economys, and it boils down to simple greed, that makes Bernie Madoff look like a kid stealing candy from Walmart.[/COLOR]

[I]
What created the housing bubble, and then burst it, was [B]government policy.[/B] Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were telling banks to go ahead and make real estate loans that people couldn't pay back... risky ones... because fannie and freddie would buy the paper from them and the bank could generate the fees but not carry the risk of the loans. The taxpayers backed Fannie and Freddie, so it was all safe.. that's what they said. This screwball plan was a result of the Community Reinvestment Act, a Carter era law which Barney Frank and Chris Dodd gave teeth to... because they were working a backdoor socialism deal in housing, 'making the american dream affordable' by violating common sense economic principles.

This policy of making it possible for banks to safely lend money to people who couldn't pay it back resulted in a rapid rise in buyers without a rapid rise in available properties.. so naturally, according to the laws of economics, prices shot up for several years, especially in areas with little or no new construction. Notably, here in Texas prices rose only five or ten percent. But in places like California it was ten times that. Enviro law hampered new construction and made it too expensive, so existing properties went thru the roof..

And when that happened, homes seemed like a heckuva thing to invest in for the big money guys, Lehman Brothers et al. Mortgages were bundled into 'instruments' and sold around the world, many to cities and counties for pension and benefit investments for the public workers to draw on in retirement, because the investments 'paid' higher rates of return (which was never really going to happen). Fannie and Freddie, quasi govt. agencies, [B]defrauded investors[/B] by ranking this paper as higher investment grade than they knew it actually was. Quasi govt. agencies, run by Democrats, executing policies that wrecked the home market and by extension the whole economy.

The home prices were being run up artificially, by the addition of huge numbers of buyers who weren't real. They bought, but they were NEVER going to pay their mortgages. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac eventually went under, taxpayers picked up the tab, and with no more government force at work making it easy for banks to make questionable mortgage loans, banks reeled it in... buyers went away, houses quit selling... the bundled 'instruments' were worthless, and the holders of that paper came up losers... including many states, cities and counties, and municipalities all over the world.

It was not 'corporate greed', it was BAD POLICY BY GOVERNMENT. "corporate greed" is a boogeyman. Business is no different than it's always been.. the thing that changes is GOVERNMENT POLICIES.

Half of Obama's cabinet is from Goldman Sachs. investment bankers CONTROLLING GOVT POLICY.[/I]
[COLOR="Red"]
Just to clarify doing without cable, or an ipod, or internet, anyone of them for a year, would not touch one month of insurance cost for an average family.
[/COLOR]
[I]My point was that some people are irresponsible and selfish, and claim to be unable to afford something when in reality they just want someone else to pay for it. The siren song of socialism. When you are told, day in and day out, that your troubles are someone else's fault and they owe you, it's pretty easy to get soft and expect things instead of persevering to take care of yourself. It is abuse of people, in my view, to deliberately create that softness and dependency in them.

As I've said repeatedly here, I have nothing but sympathy for the genuinely poor and those who struggle.. I've struggled myself... and I am FIRST in line to help the needy. But I resent 'helping' people who simply want others to pay for their stuff. It is natural, and normal, to feel this way, and is NOT related to how much money one has or how much tax one pays. It is simply human. I felt this way when I made $20k a year.

Marx was wrong. 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need' does not work. It isn't just ability, it's desire, it's initiative, it's courage, it's perseverance, it's hope of a better future, it's all sorts of emotional states and character qualities which enable a person to prosper. And yes, some luck... in a rising tide that's lifting all the boats, for example.

The taking of the fruits of one man's labor, even on the grounds of another man's need, predisposes the first man to labor less, to shoot lower, to slow down. It is discouraging to know that all it takes to seize MORE of the fruits of one's labor is for the government to make a declaration that there is more need. I continue to want to know, how much is too much to take from a productive person? 50%? 80% 95% At what point do returns diminish and revenues plummet and the poor have to do without ANYWAY because there simply isn't enough?

I guess we'll find out.

But even more.... what's fair? I subscribe to the principle that if a man labors but the fruits of his labor belong to someone else, be it govt or a collective or just another person, then the laborer is by definition a slave. This is ancient philosophy, a sensible definition of freedom and its inverse. You are not free unless you are free to keep and own the fruits of your labor. Communism is slavery. Socialism only slightly less so. Communism establishes the need in advance, whatever it takes to 'make everyone equal'. Socialism at least waits to quantify the need before moving in on your fruits.[/I]
[COLOR="Red"]
I have witnessed an incredible shift in the economy, and the standard of living accross the board has for middle America WENT DOWN. Its time they got something back. [/COLOR]

[I]Got something back from who? Who took it? Where did it go? Will the people who 'give it back' be the same ones who took it? Not a chance.

No, it will be hard working regular folks who 'give it back', folks who have a hard enough time covering all the bases as it is. And the longer we go on in decline, the fewer people that will be, and the greater the number 'in need'. Government revenue, year on year, is DOWN over TWENTY PERCENT. But [B]spending has quintupled[/B] since O was elected, and that was BEFORE health care. It is untenable, and deflation/inflation are already cycling along... deflation will kill jobs and businesses, then inflation will make the poor unable to afford groceries. It is all simple economic law.[/I]
.
[COLOR="Red"]
Are skyrocketing health care cost gonna go down anytime soon? H@ll no, creating a larger gap in who can afford it, and who cant. Accept the fact that healthcare reform is the law.[/COLOR]

[I]I would have to be insane to refuse to accept reality. I hope my sanity is not open to question after all I've written here.

But forget health care. Soon gasoline will be $10 a gallon. And milk.

Obamacare, along with other law recently adopted, will wreck the economy to the extent that people will long for the good old days of ten percent unemployment. And when economic disasters happen, the poor are hardest hit. redistribution of wealth DESTROYS wealth and suppresses a nation's ability to produce more. Government produces nothing, and skims 40% off the top of whatever it takes in for expenses before it passes around the goodies. In the case of some welfare programs the cost is more like 70%. That is the most inefficient, hence the most cruel and poverty-prolonging, 'help' that could possibly be imagined. Government is almost never the whole solution to a problem. But government loves to be the sugar daddy doling out the money, because the recipients can be depended upon to vote for whoever is doling it out.

Permanent democrat power is their goal, not 'fairness and rights for all'. They want dependency on government, so that they can reap the votes that go along with it.

Only time will prove me right. But I am.

I will NEVER understand why people blindly trust government. The lessons of the twentieth century are now forgotten, if anyone learned them in the first place. Stalin did much of what Obama is doing, and the Soviet Union killed off tens of millions of potential political opponents and 'enemies of the people'. Likewise Mao in China, upwards of 70 million when you count the 're-education camps'. Pol Pot, 2 million or more in tiny Cambodia. I throw Hitler into that bunch even though a lot of lefties cry that he was a right winger. Not true. NAZI stands for National Socialist Party.

Our government is made up of human beings with ambitions and a love of power, just like the Stalins and Maos of the world. The reason America has not yet become a totalitarian state (although Roosevelt was on his way there) is because of our constitution, LIMITING THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT TO INTERFERE with citizens' lives.

That had never been done before in world history. It is well on the way to being forgotten here too, and once our great experiment is over, I doubt it will ever happen again.

...............[/I]

Everyone has a right to a viewpoint Dave. Seems when they deregulated the fed it was at the tailend of the Clinton administration, which was controlled by a REPUBLICAN majority house. Which in my eyes started this mess. Who benefited? How about the ones involved in the hedgefunds, that payed out How much Dave, 2.7 trillion? I will be the first to admit,I know nothing. But I long for the Clinton years.

Dave I,m not completely for healthcare reform, I,m for the, what is needed. I dont like the fact that the insurance industry cherry picks. Drops you for no apparent reason. Constantly raises premiums. I personally never filed a claim for anything,or had one filed against me, and this is how you should be treated.

[QUOTE=12sandwich]Everyone has a right to a viewpoint Dave. Seems when they deregulated the fed it was at the tailend of the Clinton administration, which was controlled by a REPUBLICAN majority house. Which in my eyes started this mess. Who benefited? How about the ones involved in the hedgefunds, that payed out How much Dave, 2.7 trillion? I will be the first to admit,I know nothing. But I long for the Clinton years.[/QUOTE]

You know what...

I'm right with you.

I long for Clinton too, compared to Obama.

Republicans it may have been in congress, but not conservatives. I continue to have people throw at me "oh yeah, well repubs did this and that" and I say sorry, I wish they'd been conservatives but they weren't. I defend conservative philosophy, not republicans as such.

And I do not know why you say 'everyone has a right to a viewpoint', as if I have somehow disagreed with that by simply expressing MY viewpoint. If someone has differing views to mine, let's go into the arena of ideas and compare them. It doesn't offend me when someone disagrees, only when they think or say that I am "mean, cruel, greedy, hate black people", etc etc etc.

Saying those things about me is nothing but a way of AVOIDING the actual discussion during which one idea might reveal itself as superior, in rational terms, to another.

Most people, I have found, have strong feelings about things but very little understanding of what is actually happening. And their strong feelings usually come out "you greedy, evil racist bastard!". Not knowing me personally, these judgments are impossible for them to make with any accuracy, but the impulse to make them constitutes the entirety of their 'argument'.

Dave - "I believe limited government and free markets results in the greatest overall prosperity and the most available wealth to charitably distribute to help those in need, and I trust and believe in the charitable spirit of Americans to help the needy if they are permitted to keep enough of their own money to do so'.

Liberal - "You greedy evil racist bastard!"

Dave - "I believe the founders were right to limit government, to mistrust the accrual of power to a central authority, as history shows this often results in misery, poverty, oppression, slavery and mass murder of citizens-- INCLUDING the poor"

Liberal - "You greedy evil racist bastard!"

Needless to say, this is not conducive to genuine rational discussion of ideas.

You know Dave. My father was extremely wealthy. I never was. We didnt see eye to eye, and lived pretty much separate lives. You know who his insurance carrier was? He was. He had a million laying arround the house. But he paid his health insurance. While in Acapulco for the winter his manager spaced out his payment. They dropped old dad like a hot potato. Never to get it again due to pre existing conditions. This guy swam laps every day, played raquetball, tennis , golf, watched his weight. F$ ck all the insurance industry. The government will just speed up the presses and make more money to pay.

[QUOTE=poe4soul]That outright BS. She can pray in school all she wants if it doesn't cause substantial disruption the others trying to get an education.

The rulings from the supreme courts in regards to church and state separation is that state sponsored activities (school for instance) must pass these three tests:
1. Have a secular purpose;
2. Must neither advance nor inhibit religion as its primary effect, and;
3. Must not result in an excessive entanglement between government and religion.

The fact is the GOP has no plan to outlaw abortion. They talk the talk but if it was outlawed there gravy train of money from the anti-abortion groups would dry up. The GOP will put on a show but no way in he77 they are going to severe their easy flow of money.[/QUOTE]

Good call on the citations of Supreme court stuff. I cop to your BS call.


Again with the GOP. I'm not technically a republican. I'm a conservative. It's a philosophy, not a political party.

the kid was whisked off to surgery by SCHOOL STAFF without even INFORMING THE PARENTS.

That is the beginning of the 'collective' ownership of children, the loss of parental rights on that kind of scale. the 'state' presumption is that the parents are wrong on abortion and their view should not 'deny' their child 'treatment'. Government BECOMES parents. Parents become nothing.

I'm reminded of the gymnast from China who was interviewed after medalling. "looking forward to going home?" "I don't know"... how long since you've been? "I don't know". disinterested.

Hasn't seen her parents for years. she belongs to the state.

[QUOTE=daveperkins]You know what...

"[B]mean, cruel, greedy, hate black people[/B]", etc etc etc.

Needless to say, this is not conducive to genuine rational discussion of ideas.[/QUOTE]

Speaking of rational discussions, where the hell did this come from?

I don't recall anyone here calling you any off these things. I thing you have us confused with someone completely different.

As far as the free market goes, sure but there has to be some regulations. I don't understand the straw man of fannie/freedy. Banks did not have to invest in the mortgage markets or sell off/buy these bonds of troubled assets. For example, Bank of America was really strong after the bail out until they purchased merrill lynch, who was leveraged in this debt from these troubled assets. B of A had figured out the housing bubble and the poorly rated bonds; they were not heavily invested in the troubled assets that many other institutions where. They were not forced to invest in these troubled loans and was in a strong financial position because of these decisions. The banks made these decisions and it was pure greed. I'm not suggesting that the fed's loan mandates were wrong but the banks did not have to participate.

What about credit default swaps? These were not regulated at all. Free market at it's best and look where it got us.

I'm all for free markets but then you have to make the ceo's, cfo's and board members responsible for their companies ill fortunes. If their companies go down they do to. Just like the case for you dave when you decided to enter into business. You can't have free markets and lack of personal responsibility.

[QUOTE=daveperkins]Good call on the citations of Supreme court stuff. I cop to your BS call.


Again with the GOP. I'm not technically a republican. I'm a conservative. It's a philosophy, not a political party.

the kid was whisked off to surgery by SCHOOL STAFF without even INFORMING THE PARENTS.

That is the beginning of the 'collective' ownership of children, the loss of parental rights on that kind of scale. the 'state' presumption is that the parents are wrong on abortion and their view should not 'deny' their child 'treatment'. Government BECOMES parents. Parents become nothing.

I'm reminded of the gymnast from China who was interviewed after medalling. "looking forward to going home?" "I don't know"... how long since you've been? "I don't know". disinterested.

Hasn't seen her parents for years. she belongs to the state.[/QUOTE]

I don't know of the case your referring to. Was there a chance of incest? That's one definite case when you don't what to inform the parents. Except maybe by police.

[QUOTE=daveperkins]
Again with the GOP. I'm not technically a republican. I'm a conservative. It's a philosophy, not a political party.

[/QUOTE]

Boy dave you sound like a politician here. Are you a registered republican? If yes then I would argue that your party is not in line with your conservative ideas. Grow a pair and register an independent until they do support your beliefs. The GOP plays the conservatives when they need the votes but when it comes time to vote they side with big business (their sugar daddies) no mater what the conservative line is. Can you say Part D is a conservative policy or a big business policy? I rest my case...

[QUOTE=12sandwich]You know Dave. My father was extremely wealthy. I never was. We didnt see eye to eye, and lived pretty much separate lives. You know who his insurance carrier was? He was. He had a million laying arround the house. But he paid his health insurance. While in Acapulco for the winter his manager spaced out his payment. They dropped old dad like a hot potato. Never to get it again due to pre existing conditions. This guy swam laps every day, played raquetball, tennis , golf, watched his weight. F$ ck all the insurance industry. The government will just speed up the presses and make more money to pay.[/QUOTE]

My primary practical concern for this country is exactly that the government will print more money. This devalues the money we already have, and causes massive hyper inflation, thus increasing the prices for everything, and putting some suppliers out of business due to reduced sales, thus DECREASING the supply of goods while increasing their prices. Medical care being a service, THE PRINTING OF MONEY WILL CAUSE THE COST OF MEDICAL CARE TO SKYROCKET.

This hyperinflation hurts the poor the most, since they are least likely to be able to make up the difference by making more income.

when milk becomes $10 a gallon because we kept printing money, what will the poor do for groceries? when gasoline becomes $10 a gallon ([I]which the left actively works for and wants, btw, to force change in consumption patterns[/I]), how will the working poor get to work?

You can't have a country where everyone gets everything free or subsidized. Eventually the bill comes, and if actual payment is not possible ([I]and it isn't[/I]) then the alternative happens... everyone, EVERYONE, goes down in lifestyle and that includes the poor remaining poor and getting poorer. Check Soviet Union history to find out if government medical care and redistribution of wealth made the poor better off.

All it did was chop down the middle class until there were more poor than ever. And the 'new rich' were MEMBERS OF GOVERNMENT, the elite. the privileged class....

I don't know enough about your father's situation to judge it, but clearly you are ferociously angry over it. [B]If the contract stipulated nonpayment as legitimate reason for dropping coverage, and nonpayment occurred with no warning, no request to the company to make arrangements somehow, and NO RESPONSE from the late payer to company inquiries about payment[/B], then their contract made what they did legal and appropriate. If it was illegal or out of the bounds of the contract he could have sued them and won.

He was responsible for himself, and failed to execute that responsibility by making sure payments were on time. He has a right to sue his manager for damages in that instance, if the manager's negligence caused your father to lose his medical policy and absorb substantial costs for care at market rates.

You blame the insurance company for that, but it's a personal responsibility thing.

If he didn't make payments on his car, and they came and got that, would you want to feck the car finance industry? If he didn't make his mortgage payments and they repossessed his house, likewise feck the evil nasty cruel mortgage bank?

It's called a CONTRACT, and both sides have to abide by it. Can't have business without it. ([I]But of course Obama is now dictating to banks that they cannot repossess and sell properties if the buyer isn't making his payments. guys with $150k annual incomes who have mortgages on $700k homes, which they SHOULDN"T HAVE BOUGHT AT THEIR INCOME LEVELS, are now gonna keep those homes and screw the banks... contract? what contract? Banks are evil, right? God help us[/I].)

Medical care is a service, and appropriate levels of seriousness in acquiring that service are demanded from each of us. The ins. companies agree to risk the possibility that something bad might happen to you and they will pay the bills for that, in return for your monthly payments. They are betting that you'll pay in more than you put out, and the 'over/under' is established by the most comprehensive databases in the world, actuarial data, real life averages and histories of real people. They are VERY accurate.

Medical insurance is a financial instrument, an agreement to share risk. It is not a permanent obligation on the part of the insurance company to always make sure you have care. That is your OWN obligation to yourself.

Only now it's everyone's obligation to everyone else.

workers of the world, unite. All hail the wisdom of our dear leader.

Dave you seem like a real good guy,and very well read. Please understand. I only enjoy others, views as well. Politics are such a hot topic, with so many sides. I,m going out for 18 holes. Its beautifull outside

[QUOTE=12sandwich]Dave you seem like a real good guy,and very well read. Please understand. I only enjoy others, views as well. Politics are such a hot topic, with so many sides. I,m going out for 18 holes. Its beautifull outside[/QUOTE]

Go for it. :-) I"m done on this.

[QUOTE=12sandwich]Everyone has a right to a viewpoint Dave. Seems when they deregulated the fed it was at the tailend of the Clinton administration, which was controlled by a REPUBLICAN majority house. Which in my eyes started this mess. Who benefited? How about the ones involved in the hedgefunds, that payed out How much Dave, 2.7 trillion? I will be the first to admit,I know nothing. But I long for the Clinton years.[/QUOTE]

The Clinton years were successful only because there was a republican congress--Newt Gingrich in particular-- who sat on Clinton and made him sign smart monetary policy. They forced Welfare Reform on him--even though he vetoed it 3 times.

Clinton repealed the Banking Act of 1933 was a law that established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in the United States and introduced banking reforms, some of which were designed to control speculation. It is most commonly known as the Glass–Steagall Act, after its legislative sponsors, Carter Glass and Henry B. Steagall.

He did that at the urging of DEMOCRATS who were appointed to run Freddy and Fannie and who stood to make millions personally if they could force banks to make mortgage loans. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were complicite in the scheme. Both Bush and McCain to their credit, gave several strong speeches warning of the consequences of this-- Bush mentioned it prominently in his State of the Union speech-- but his warning was ignored by the Democrat congress majority. Those speeches are on youtube-- you can find them and listen to ethical people warning us.

The big investment banks jumped aboard and profited by packaging the mortgage loans and selling them as derivatives, etc.

So remember who did this to us-- and it was the democrats!

BTW, the Senator who got the most from Freddie Mac for helping with this fiasco--OBAMA! He took down $24,000 in cash.

Larry

[QUOTE=Larryrsf][B]The Clinton years were successful only because there was a republican congress[/B]--Newt Gingrich in particular-- who sat on Clinton and made him sign smart monetary policy. They forced Welfare Reform on him--even though he vetoed it 3 times.

Clinton repealed the Banking Act of 1933 was a law that established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in the United States and introduced banking reforms, some of which were designed to control speculation. It is most commonly known as the Glass–Steagall Act, after its legislative sponsors, Carter Glass and Henry B. Steagall.

He did that at the urging of DEMOCRATS who were appointed to run Freddy and Fannie and who stood to make millions personally if they could force banks to make mortgage loans. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were complicite in the scheme. Both Bush and McCain to their credit, gave several strong speeches warning of the consequences of this-- Bush mentioned it prominently in his State of the Union speech-- but his warning was ignored by the Democrat congress majority. Those speeches are on youtube-- you can find them and listen to ethical people warning us.

The big investment banks jumped aboard and profited by packaging the mortgage loans and selling them as derivatives, etc.

So remember who did this to us-- and it was the democrats!

BTW, the Senator who got the most from Freddie Mac for helping with this fiasco--OBAMA! He took down $24,000 in cash.

Larry[/QUOTE]

The Clinton Administration was successful because Reagan had already paved a way for better economy with his Reaganomics 2 terms before Clinton got there. Just go back, look at history, run the numbers and it all makes sense. Ronald Reagan was the reason Clinton got to sit in the oval office, smoke juicy cigars and receive hummers from voluptuous interns and get credit for a great economy.

[QUOTE=Larryrsf]And they wrote back then that in a democracy--when more than half the people learn that they can vote themselves money from the treasury--the republic cannot exist longer.

And we may be there. 55% voted for Obama. They voted for government to take from those who earn and give to those who don't-- "from each according to his ability and to each according to his need." That is classic Communism. It has never worked anywhere--because it kills human nature. When society dampens the incentive of the very very few champions among us, they will stop--and we all lose. Howard Hughes hired 25,000 engineers.

Larry[/QUOTE]

Provisions that prohibit a bank holding company from owning other financial companies were repealed on November 12, 1999, by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act

Larry

Quoting yourself is a b!tchmove, Larry.

[QUOTE=SoonerBS]Quoting yourself is a b!tchmove, Larry.[/QUOTE]

Oh jeez. Did I inadvertantly comply with something?

larry

[QUOTE=Larryrsf]Provisions that prohibit a bank holding company from owning other financial companies were repealed on November 12, 1999, by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act[/QUOTE]

And was that good for the US or bad for it, Larry?

[QUOTE=alangbaker]And was that good for the US or bad for it, Larry?[/QUOTE]

I'm starting to realize that Alan's presence is absolutely necessary to keep Larry in check.

[QUOTE=famousdavis]I'm starting to realize that Alan's presence is absolutely necessary to keep Larry in check.[/QUOTE]


I don't know, Larry is spunky today without Alan hassling him every post . . . . . . I kind of like it . . . . .

[QUOTE=SoonerBS]I don't know, Larry is spunky today without Alan hassling him every post . . . . . . I kind of like it . . . . .[/QUOTE]

Larry just rephrases my posts in a manner more brief, but in spite of that, less coherent.

Lorenzo... Larry's posts are shorter than mine... you might want to spend time reading them to cheer yourself up...

[QUOTE=daveperkins]Larry just rephrases my posts in a manner more brief, but in spite of that, less coherent.

Lorenzo... Larry's posts are shorter than mine... you might want to spend time reading them to cheer yourself up...[/QUOTE]

Alan is an illiterate Canadian dropout. He has no education, no job, and no money. He writes about golf but he can't afford to golf. I don't sympathize with him because he did this to himself--likely drugs. Now he is a loser who spends every day all day doing this. Why would we read what he writes about golf or anything? I just ignore him like I would any wino sitting along the street and yelling gibberish at the passing people.

Larry

[QUOTE=Larryrsf]Alan is an illiterate Canadian dropout.
Larry[/QUOTE]



"Canadian"....? That's a bit harsh.

[QUOTE=Larryrsf]Alan is an illiterate Canadian dropout. He has no education, no job, and no money. He writes about golf but he can't afford to golf. I don't sympathize with him because he did this to himself--likely drugs. Now he is a loser who spends every day all day doing this. Why would we read what he writes about golf or anything? I just ignore him like I would any wino sitting along the street and yelling gibberish at the passing people.[/QUOTE]

Say that to my face some time, Larry.

I'll just laugh as I take your money on the course.

[URL="http://www.rcganetwork.org/Score/ScoringRecord.aspx?ID=453842"]http://www.rcganetwork.org/Score/ScoringRecord.aspx?ID=453842[/URL]

:thumbsup:

[QUOTE=alangbaker]Say that to my face some time, Larry.

I'll just laugh as I take your money on the course.

[URL="http://www.rcganetwork.org/Score/ScoringRecord.aspx?ID=453842"]http://www.rcganetwork.org/Score/ScoringRecord.aspx?ID=453842[/URL]

:thumbsup:[/QUOTE]

Larry spent all his money on hats and PVC pipe.

Isn't Greenacres a club famous for hot cart girls? Seems like they won some contests a while back....

[QUOTE=alangbaker]Say that to my face some time, Larry.

I'll just laugh as I take your money on the course.

[URL="http://www.rcganetwork.org/Score/ScoringRecord.aspx?ID=453842"]http://www.rcganetwork.org/Score/ScoringRecord.aspx?ID=453842[/URL]

:thumbsup:[/QUOTE]
WTF is a silver or gold tee?

P.S. I'd change that file photo unless you want people to think Larry has a point. The long unkempt hair and unshaven face could be interpreted as unemployed (of which I'm sure you aren't).

P.P.S. From comparing your file photo to Larry's, I'd bet that Larry has no intentions of saying anything to your face any time soon.

[QUOTE=Not a hacker]WTF is a silver or gold tee?[/quote]

Beats me. What is it?

[quote]P.S. I'd change that file photo unless you want people to think Larry has a point. The long unkempt hair and unshaven face could be interpreted as unemployed (of which I'm sure you aren't).[/quote]

Nah. I am who I am and I don't worry about what ********s like Larry think. He only says them because he knows I could beat him by 10 strokes. :)

[quote]P.P.S. From comparing your file photo to Larry's, I'd bet that Larry has no intentions of saying anything to your face any time soon.[/QUOTE]

Psssh. "Damning with faint praise", NAH.

:D

[QUOTE=alangbaker][B]Beats me. What is it?[/B]



Nah. I am who I am and I don't worry about what ********s like Larry think. He only says them because he knows I could beat him by 10 strokes. :)



Psssh. "Damning with faint praise", NAH.

:D[/QUOTE]
I was referring to the tees listed on your golf printout. You had blue and white tees, but there were also gold and silver tees. I was wondering if the gold tees were the ultra back championship plates or something.

[QUOTE=Not a hacker]I was referring to the tees listed on your golf printout. You had blue and white tees, but there were also gold and silver tees. I was wondering if the gold tees were the ultra back championship plates or something.[/QUOTE]

I actually knew that... I was just having a bit of fun.

Morgan uses silver as an intermediate tee between white and blue.

Mayfair uses gold instead of black. That round was very special as it was a private memorial to our father for my brother Chris and I. Dad had taken up the game about 7 years ago, and Mayfair was his club. We never got to play there with him because for the first while he was too self-conscious about the state of his game, and then very soon after he got good enough that he'd play with us, he was diagnosed with lung cancer. When Chris and I went up to Edmonton for his funeral, we were both going a bit crazy and a bunch of people went out of their way to give us 4 peaceful hours on his course. At a very bad time, it was a refuge.

[QUOTE=daveperkins]Larry spent all his money on hats and PVC pipe.[/quote]

Don't forget the other failed swing training gimmicks:

[URL="http://www.rulate.org/"]http://www.rulate.org/[/URL]

[URL="http://www.pivotforpower.com/"]http://www.pivotforpower.com/[/URL]

Not to mention trying to pass off Grand and Toy bull clips as "money clips":

[URL="http://www.delmardata.com/dmd_products.htm"]http://www.delmardata.com/dmd_products.htm[/URL]

[quote]Isn't Greenacres a club famous for hot cart girls? Seems like they won some contests a while back....[/QUOTE]

Is it? I've never notice that aspect of it particularly... :)

[QUOTE=poe4soul]Boy dave you sound like a politician here. Are you a registered republican? If yes then I would argue that your party is not in line with your conservative ideas. Grow a pair and register an independent until they do support your beliefs. The GOP plays the conservatives when they need the votes but when it comes time to vote they side with big business (their sugar daddies) no mater what the conservative line is. Can you say Part D is a conservative policy or a big business policy? I rest my case...[/QUOTE]

No, I am not a registered republican. The party is not in line with my conservative beliefs. But I do vote republican most of the time, as the democrat party is OPPOSITE to my conservative beliefs.

I agree that part D is a lousy policy which is helping bankrupt the system that Obama just made a thousand times bigger, more expensive and more likely to be bankrupt.. Part D is popular with seniors but is not conservative policy, it is socialist policy.

I do not know why you continue to try to hang republican folly around my neck, though.. I have always said I am conservative, not republican. But you keep coming up with sheite republicans do and going "hah" or some such.. :-)

and I do not know what the link is between having testicles and registering a party affiliation..... but I do have two testicles, if it's that important to you. :-)

btw I'm working on response to your 'credit default swaps" ahah moment. warning to Lorenzo, it might be a few lines past 3.

[QUOTE=poe4soul]Speaking of rational discussions, where the hell did this come from?

I don't recall anyone here calling you any off these things. I thing you have us confused with someone completely different.

As far as the free market goes, sure but there has to be some regulations. I don't understand the straw man of fannie/freedy. Banks did not have to invest in the mortgage markets or sell off/buy these bonds of troubled assets. For example, Bank of America was really strong after the bail out until they purchased merrill lynch, who was leveraged in this debt from these troubled assets. B of A had figured out the housing bubble and the poorly rated bonds; they were not heavily invested in the troubled assets that many other institutions where. They were not forced to invest in these troubled loans and was in a strong financial position because of these decisions. The banks made these decisions and it was pure greed. I'm not suggesting that the fed's loan mandates were wrong but the banks did not have to participate.

What about credit default swaps? These were not regulated at all. Free market at it's best and look where it got us.

I'm all for free markets but then you have to make the ceo's, cfo's and board members responsible for their companies ill fortunes. If their companies go down they do to. Just like the case for you dave when you decided to enter into business. You can't have free markets and lack of personal responsibility.[/QUOTE]

The first part is an example of generic liberal name-calling, which is common as a response to the things I"ve said in these threads. It did not imply that anyone here said it to me. REading my actual post, you'll find the text went on to specify generic "Liberal" as the name caller, not "Poe" or anyone else. Generic. :-)

Bank of America very much was FORCED to buy Merrill Lynch. I can quote an Obama finance guy in that meeting, when BOA officials expressed doubts as to the solidity of Merrill... the Obama guy said "DO YOU KNOW WHO THE FUKC YOU"RE DEALING WITH???"

and BOA bought Merrill.

It is an early example of this govt's tendency toward totalitarianism.

"the banks made these decisions and it was pure greed"... well, when the govt TELLS you they want you to make the loans AND they'll take the risk away from you and put it on the taxpayers instead, what banker WOULDN"T respond to those two circumstances and make the loans? Lots of them did, and it was a collection of impulses, not 'pure greed'. The motivations were engineered by government to trade on banks' natural desire for high returns and low risk. We the taxpayers were made to take the risk.

What about credit default swaps? They were fine as long as there was no fraud in the representation of the companies which the CDS guys were trading on. But FANNIE MAE FREDDIE MAC COMMITTED MAJOR FRAUD, pretending these millions of mortgages were good paper when they knew differently. Credit default swaps don't work when the underlying businesses or institutions on which the CDS is written are riddled with deliberate misrepresentations about the quality of their finances... and it was GOVERNMENT that did the deliberate misrepresenting.

"If companies go down, their officers should too"

another magic moment when you and I agree completely.. :-) that would certainly encourage fiscal AND fiduciary responsibility by those people. Make them... more... CONSERVATIVE... in their decisions...

:-)

[QUOTE=daveperkins]No, I am not a registered republican. The party is not in line with my conservative beliefs. But I do vote republican most of the time, as the democrat party is OPPOSITE to my conservative beliefs.

I agree that part D is a lousy policy which is helping bankrupt the system that Obama just made a thousand times bigger, more expensive and more likely to be bankrupt.. Part D is popular with seniors but is not conservative policy, it is socialist policy.

I do not know why you continue to try to hang republican folly around my neck, though.. I have always said I am conservative, not republican. But you keep coming up with sheite republicans do and going "hah" or some such.. :-)

and I do not know what the link is between having testicles and registering a party affiliation..... but I do have two testicles, if it's that important to you. :-)

btw I'm working on response to your 'credit default swaps" ahah moment. warning to Lorenzo, it might be a few lines past 3.[/QUOTE]

good reply. I just noticed you've never really answered my question directly. Seemed like a Texan two step.

While you're researching cds's I'll play a hole card and ask you what the relationship is with bond rating companies and wall street? Why were these crappy bonds rated AAA? Could it be that they are in bed together? Free market? These bonds were junk but got AAA rating. Why is it that an investment bank can sell these bonds from to me while betting heavily that they are going to tank in another part of the bank? Is it or isn't a good investment? The whole time they have paid to have the bond rated.

Oops got to go dinners on....

[QUOTE=poe4soul]good reply. I just noticed you've never really answered my question directly. Seemed like a Texan two step.

While you're researching cds's I'll play a hole card and ask you what the relationship is with bond rating companies and wall street? Why were these crappy bonds rated AAA? Could it be that they are in bed together? Free market? These bonds were junk but got AAA rating. Why is it that an investment bank can sell these bonds from to me while betting heavily that they are going to tank in another part of the bank? Is it or isn't a good investment? The whole time they have paid to have the bond rated.

Oops got to go dinners on....[/QUOTE]

You asked if it was a conservative policy or a big business policy. Neither option is as accurate in my view as 'socialist policy', so that was my answer. Direct. I don't do 'when did you stop beating your wife?' questions.. :-)

Nice hole card. I don't know a thing about bonds. And I don't expect to know about them tonight, or even next week. :-)

I myself have always wondered at the 'stock researchers' working in the investment banks, who are paid by their bank to convince their clients to invest money in their bank. Every stock is a 'winner', with that conflict of interest going. And I remember a few years back that some private emails from the stock researchers were revealed, showing them laughing about crap stocks while highly rating them on the bank websites.

Like they say, a fool and his money.... I've been the fool a time or two, live and learn...

Crooks abound. Even the best, wealthiest, most careful, most reserved people in the world were Madoff victims....

But how does a tightly regulated environment make things right, when government itself is responsible for the largest fraud and the largest market segment collapse (housing) in history? Government BROKE this, and some people still think they will FIX it.

Reichstag fire.

Government cannot be trusted. Not when it tries so hard to take so much control of every dammn thing. Madoff has NOTHING on fannie and freddie, NOTHING. They destroyed far more wealth than he did, and they ARE government.

Research sub prime loans/bonds, bond ratings and cds's then we can debate.

[QUOTE=poe4soul]Research sub prime loans/bonds, bond ratings and cds's then we can debate.[/QUOTE]

Research how many personal millions Rahm Immanuel and others still in government took. The crooks are still here! They got Clinton to sign the Glass-Stiegel repeal and all heck broke loose after that. The foxes were put in charge of the henhouses.. they all became millionaires on taxpayer money-- and they are all DEMOCRATS. Frank, Dodd, Maxine Watters, et. al.

[url]http://money.cnn.com/video/news/2009/12/24/n_fannie_freddie_bonuses.cnnmoney/[/url]

Larry

This thread is destined for 300.

[QUOTE=Larryrsf]Research how many personal millions Rahm Immanuel and others still in government took. The crooks are still here! They got Clinton to sign the Glass-Stiegel repeal and all heck broke loose after that. The foxes were put in charge of the henhouses.. they all became millionaires on taxpayer money-- and they are all DEMOCRATS. Frank, Dodd, Maxine Watters, et. al.

[url]http://money.cnn.com/video/news/2009/12/24/n_fannie_freddie_bonuses.cnnmoney/[/url][/QUOTE]

Quick question, Larry: the bill the repealed Glass-Stiegel, what was it called?

And to what party did Gramm, Leach, and Bliley all belong?

It is interesting how the people who caused this crisis are now being paid well to get us out of it.

[QUOTE=alangbaker]Quick question, Larry: the bill the repealed Glass-Stiegel, what was it called?

And to what party did Gramm, Leach, and Bliley all belong?[/QUOTE]

And who appointed Greenspan after Volcker decided to retire?

Honestly I think Greenspan had as much to do with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act as anyone. Without his blessing none of this would have happened.

So Larry, whom do you think lobbied congress to change the law? Could it have been the, wait for it, bankers? Duh.

[QUOTE=KoolCat]This is the heart of the problem. I know a couple that supposedly could not afford health insurance. However, they could afford a 60" TV, 2 personal Blackberries, iPods, $100+/month for HD cable, $200/month gym memberships, $200+/month in cell phone bills, $60/month high speed internet, $200+/month for tennis lessons/courts/etc, and the list goes on. They had the audacity to complain when an ambulance was going to bill them $800 to take the wife to the hospital when she had an allergic reaction. They paid $0 for insurance, but were outraged that it would cost $800 to get her to a hospital and possibly save her life. Guess who they both voted for last presidential election? I'll give you a hint, it rhymes with 'yo mama'. Now that this health care 'reform' has passed, we are all going to be paying more for insurance and treatment. Now they will be forced to buy insurance and it will cost more than it would have before this clusterf*ck of a bill... Nice going, freakin' libs!.[/QUOTE]

truth be told, anytime government takes over and starts dictating how much money goes where, from whom and to whom, there are three inevitable 'market force' reactions--

increased cost

decreased supply

decreased quality

any combination of any one or all three is inevitable. If cost goes up, MAYBE quality is maintained at the new higher cost. If supply decreases, ditto, but fewer will get the care... and if quality drops, Michael Moore's praise of the Cuban cockroach medical system will seem appropriate, as one day it will be superior to ours.

You may be able to make a market "unfree" but you cannot eliminate market forces. Every time government tries, the above three things come into play.

government cannot simultaneously FORCE a commodity (like health care) to be cheaper, more plentiful and/or higher quality. And if a commodity becomes more expensive, less plentiful and/or lower quality because of market forces, government cannot FIX it. they can only make it worse.

A simple observation of the working economy over the past fifty years offers complete and consistent proof of this.

[QUOTE=Larryrsf][url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-6UCLGsI7E[/url]

This is a typical recent practice session. I hit a whole bucket with a 6i-- first rehearsing the sequence with arms crossed -- then when hitting balls only a few yards. Before each swing I rehearse "the footwork" to ensure the correct sequence is in my mind. Turn, POST, swing. Heretofore I have always rushed through the turn and POST iteration-- and just swung having made a partial turn and then zero POST. That is the UGLY amateur swing we see up and down every public driving range. A very very few make the sequence we see all top amateurs and every pro make, turn, post, swing. One, two, three.

It pays off quickly when I can swing with that sequence fresh in my mind. I know I will be able to hit fairways and greens--and probably drive it MUCH further--when my turn is supplying power--and not just arms.

[url]http://forums.golfreview.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2391&stc=1&d=1269204941[/url]

Larry[/QUOTE]


[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpZukeKH9p8[/url]

Hit another few balls today, still working to make a better transition weight shift, a better turn back and better finish. Slowly improving. This works and it transfers to the golf course. I am eager to play Sea-n-Air Sunday morning. Navy course on North Island--the same island where the Hotel Del Coronado is-- and also the Seal Training base.

Larry

[QUOTE=poe4soul]Then there is "Do not covet." We've seemed to forget this one in America as we go about our capitalism (read greed).

Well I'm sure that you don't know as much as you profess. So where does that leave us? I'm not exactly a daisy here dave but I just don't regurgitate one parties side either. All of your talking points are verbatim from the GOP book. It is a very complicated system you're talking about. You are counting on the private side telling you the truth about many things. I don't know if you got the new flash but many business don't disclose everything they know or all of their earnings. I might be wrong but I doubt they're being 100% honest. Likewise the government is just the pawns of the players with money.

Again Dave don't get me wrong. I'm not for this health care system that just became law but I also don't believe some of the answers you've promoted would get us there either. It's more in line with business but it's not balanced by any means.

Since you're a conservative and not a republican I guess you're a registered independent?[/QUOTE]

Thou shalt not covet means DO NOT WANT YOUR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY OR FAMILY.

It does NOT mean 'do not want to have as much as your neighbor has.' Wanting to have something is morally neutral; it all depends on what the thing is and what you're willing to do to get it.

The moral injunction against coveting is related to stealing ([I]another commandment, not coincidentally[/I]), in that you have to covet something in order to be motivated to steal it. It is about directly wanting, then taking, [I][B]a specific thing someone else has.[/B][/I]

Wanting to be wealthy is NOT coveting. And it is not in itself morally wrong.

as in every aspect of life, it's what you do with what you have... and what you do to get it.

"verbatim from the GOP book"

that's news to me. As a definitely NOT republican, registered or otherwise, I was convinced that I had reached all my worldview conclusions on my own. Silly me. All these fifty years of living and working and failing and succeeding really haven't taught me anything... without the GOP book I"d be a blank slate.

sheite. :-)

I too am sure I don't know as much as I profess. But my points are usually along the lines of principle. Some principles work every time. Some are rarely if ever even TRIED. But I know they worked in my life and in my career.

And I know for SURE that the aggregation of all power to a central government is itself destined for an outcome on principle, as Lord Acton said. It results in corruption, on a scale and with a miserable result which no private business or market could possibly duplicate.

I don't see how a free market could have deliberately killed 70 million people in the twenty years that took Mao, for instance. That sort of devastation is the exclusive province of all powerful central government.

The closer we get to that, the worse it will be for everyone, poor and rich alike. I do not trust government unless government abides by constitutional limits. It has not done so in my lifetime, no matter which party is nominally in power. But democrats, in my lifetime, have done much worse in this area.

[QUOTE=Not a hacker]I can't believe I'm saying this but I agree with all of the above. The way things are going there is going to be a dramatic shift in the social order of the world. These second and third wolrd countries that keep sending us their losers are going to get stronger as they have less dead weight dragging them down, while our living standards will sink faster than the Titanic on the back of crippling debts from the financial burden of welfare and healthcare forced upon us by other countries rejects.[/QUOTE]


I, too, can't believe you're saying this.

:-))

But bear in mind that, at least in this country now, the socialist/communist/leftists, the ACORN/SEIU union guys, they all [B][I]WANT[/I][/B] this drop in American living standards. They believe it will result in a small increase in the living standards of those third world folk, and that will yoke them to the Left forever as voters and supporters. If you have a nice standard of living in another country (oz, nz, etc) and it is run by leftists, beware... they all have the same goals. Our gigantic union, the Service Workers International Union, is actively spreading itself worldwide, and intends to spread American wealth worldwide to 'help the worker'. If your country has any wealth, it is a target too.

I believe that seizure/redistribution of wealth on that scale, "maldistribution correction" as DNC chair Howard Dean and Democrat senator Max Baucus recently called it, will wreck the generation of wealth by the private sector, will NOT help the third world type poor, and will create many more poor in THIS country.

They will depend on govt. but govt. will NOT have enough resources to go around. Government cannot create wealth, only seize it and pass around the goodies (after its expenses are skimmed, of course, 40% or more)....

Bingo. Drop in living standard for everybody, even the poor eventually. Obama said in the campaign at Joe the plumber's house "spread the wealth around, good for everybody"... NOT.

[QUOTE=daveperkins]Thou shalt not covet means DO NOT WANT YOUR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY OR FAMILY.

It does NOT mean 'do not want to have as much as your neighbor has.' Wanting to have something is morally neutral; it all depends on what the thing is and what you're willing to do to get it.

The moral injunction against coveting is related to stealing ([I]another commandment, not coincidentally[/I]), in that you have to covet something in order to be motivated to steal it. It is about directly wanting, then taking, [I][B]a specific thing someone else has.[/B][/I]

Wanting to be wealthy is NOT coveting. And it is not in itself morally wrong.

as in every aspect of life, it's what you do with what you have... and what you do to get it.

"verbatim from the GOP book"

that's news to me. As a definitely NOT republican, registered or otherwise, I was convinced that I had reached all my worldview conclusions on my own. Silly me. All these fifty years of living and working and failing and succeeding really haven't taught me anything... without the GOP book I"d be a blank slate.

sheite. :-)

I too am sure I don't know as much as I profess. But my points are usually along the lines of principle. Some principles work every time. Some are rarely if ever even TRIED. But I know they worked in my life and in my career.

And I know for SURE that the aggregation of all power to a central government is itself destined for an outcome on principle, as Lord Acton said. It results in corruption, on a scale and with a miserable result which no private business or market could possibly duplicate.

I don't see how a free market could have deliberately killed 70 million people in the twenty years that took Mao, for instance. That sort of devastation is the exclusive province of all powerful central government.

The closer we get to that, the worse it will be for everyone, poor and rich alike. I do not trust government unless government abides by constitutional limits. It has not done so in my lifetime, no matter which party is nominally in power. But democrats, in my lifetime, have done much worse in this area.[/QUOTE]

I'm on my iPhone so I'm not going to try to address all 500 words.

Tell me, what do you call it when a person has more money than they can resonably spend in there life time, they have wealth amassed with multiple homes, cars, etc. and still strive to work deals to amass more money and power. Covet is rooted in the act of being selfish; it is greed. Yes I agree that being wealthy is not a sin but the desire for power and earthly belongings of this magnitude is usually acheived through desire is to covet. It usually leads to breaking many of the other commandments like stealing, adultry, etc. In fact it should probably be much higher on the list.

[QUOTE=Larryrsf][url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpZukeKH9p8[/url]

Hit another few balls today, still working to make a better transition weight shift, a better turn back and better finish. Slowly improving. This works and it transfers to the golf course. I am eager to play Sea-n-Air Sunday morning. Navy course on North Island--the same island where the Hotel Del Coronado is-- and also the Seal Training base.

Larry[/QUOTE]
For a fat, feeble, uncoordinated geriatric head case, that swing looks surprisingly sound Larry. My only piece of contructive advice is get yourself a girdle if you are going to go out in public swinging a golf club. The movements of a golf swing are not flattering for a jellybelly.

[QUOTE=Not a hacker]For a fat, feeble, uncoordinated geriatric head case, that swing looks surprisingly sound Larry. My only piece of contructive advice is get yourself a girdle if you are going to go out in public swinging a golf club. The movements of a golf swing are not flattering for a jellybelly.[/QUOTE]

Actually, I wish I had a swing close to that.

That looks really good, seriously, for a C handball player, nonetheless.

I love the Pabst Blue Ribbon beer can!

Kick their asses Larry!

[QUOTE=spanqdoggie]Actually, I wish I had a swing close to that.

That looks really good, seriously, for a C handball player, nonetheless.

I love the Pabst Blue Ribbon beer can!

Kick their asses Larry![/QUOTE]
I could actually see him being able to play reasonably consistent golf if he swung like that on the course.

So a couple of you guys find 100 posts on a thread you started and get all high-five like and so Larry then reaches back and puts up a 300 post thread. He must laugh everytime someone gloats about 100.

[QUOTE=lorenzoinoc]So a couple of you guys find 100 posts on a thread you started and get all high-five like and so Larry then reaches back and puts up a 300 post thread. He must laugh everytime someone gloats about 100.[/QUOTE]


It's not the size of the thread that matters, it's how you use it.

Now see Larry like everyone else has said, that swing didn't look half bad. It won't break any carry distance records, but it'll work.

[QUOTE=Mward2002]Now see Larry like everyone else has said, that swing didn't look half bad. It won't break any carry distance records, but it'll work.[/QUOTE]

Thanks all. I worked fairly hard to achieve that decent swing. But looking back, it actually wasn't THAT hard. It is LOT harder to teach ourselves to read music and then play even the most elementary tune on a guitar, for instance.

The method that worked for me was simply to get good fundamentals (which are most quickly learned through lessons), and then stubborn adherence to the details and persistent practice. And practice in slow motion and then hitting balls only a few yards, etc. I had to be patient.

I know well that we will usually revert to what is comfortable and familiar after the first few lesson or two, fail to improve--and actually play worse instead of better because we are confused. So additional lessons are when most of us really learn--that we should have stuck with what we were taught in the first lesson! Maybe the smartest thing is to purchase a 6-set of lessons, obligate yourself in advance to return.

The details of grip and setup really are important-- the backswing plane is extremely important because if we don't reach a correct top position, it is only an accident when the ball goes straight. With poor fundamentals, consistency is impossible. Those guys are doomed to high handicap golf, to lose a lot of balls, ha

Now I am working to better ingrain the transition weight shift, that suble move of hips toward the target while my shoulders are turned back. That move is the difference between accomplished and struggling amateurs. It iis the key to a consistently good golf swing, fairways and greens. I will often feel myself just skip right through it with driver-- which means I remain unable to control my mind when my intention is distance. So I plan to practice alternating between lofted irons and driver-- trying to bring my 7i swing to the longer club. Might work.

Larry

[QUOTE=poe4soul]Tell me, what do you call it when a person has more money than they can resonably spend in there life time, they have wealth amassed with multiple homes, cars, etc. and still strive to work deals to amass more money and power. Covet is rooted in the act of being selfish; it is greed. Yes I agree that being wealthy is not a sin but the desire for power and earthly belongings of this magnitude is usually acheived through desire is to covet. It usually leads to breaking many of the other commandments like stealing, adultry, etc. In fact it should probably be much higher on the list.[/QUOTE]

"Covet is rooted in the act of being selfish"

you are now perilously close to the classical Christian assertion 'man has a sin nature'.

:-)

You appear to be fixated on the acquisitive part. But the competitive part is far more in play in your scenario... and the competitive part is an expression of "Pride", which is not wanting more per se but wanting MORE THAN THE OTHER GUY so you can lord it over him.

a guy with far more than he could ever need, still trying to get more and more, is COMPETITIVE, determined to keep playing the game and keep winning. same motive as the guy who won't leave the card table at the casino.

But I stand by my initial definition of "covet". The phrase "thy neighbor's wife" is from this injunction, a phrase which defines the injunction specifically, 'do not sit and burn with desire for a[B][I] specific thing [/I][/B]that your neighbor has, so that you end up wanting to take it from him, wanting to win at his expense'. Don't covet.

Not selfishness in general, but a very specific and very COMPETITIVE aspect of it.

Pride, not greed, is the great sin addressed in "thou shalt not covet".

Thanks Dave for making things clear. Now i know why I am just an average joe. I am only competitve on the golf course.

[QUOTE=daveperkins]"Covet is rooted in the act of being selfish"

you are now perilously close to the classical Christian assertion 'man has a sin nature'.

:-)

You appear to be fixated on the acquisitive part. But the competitive part is far more in play in your scenario... and the competitive part is an expression of "Pride", which is not wanting more per se but wanting MORE THAN THE OTHER GUY so you can lord it over him.

a guy with far more than he could ever need, still trying to get more and more, is COMPETITIVE, determined to keep playing the game and keep winning. same motive as the guy who won't leave the card table at the casino.

But I stand by my initial definition of "covet". The phrase "thy neighbor's wife" is from this injunction, a phrase which defines the injunction specifically, 'do not sit and burn with desire for a[B][I] specific thing [/I][/B]that your neighbor has, so that you end up wanting to take it from him, wanting to win at his expense'. Don't covet.

Not selfishness in general, but a very specific and very COMPETITIVE aspect of it.

Pride, not greed, is the great sin addressed in "thou shalt not covet".[/QUOTE]

The dictionary defines covet as an inordinate desire.

To me it doesn't have to do with the wealth itself. It doesn't have to be about money or things. It can be about power, peoples respect, stature, etc. It could even be about golf. Again in relation to money it's about greed. I'm not the only one to think this way. Just google covet and you'll see many biblical references to greed. I guess greed is just one type of coveting.

To me covet describes an imbalance in ones life where the inordinate desires skews ones perception, beliefs, etc. It changes one's justifications. Many people that acquire such wealth get imbalanced by the desire of more. More power, more money, bigger houses, larger bonus than their co-workers, etc. Or basically said greed. Based on what I've seen in the news on sub-prime markets, credit default swaps, etc. the players involved make many justifications for their accumulations of power and wealth.

I don't have a problem with acquisition of wealth. I'm sure there are many people that have true honest lives and are extremely wealthy. But I'm also sure that many extremely wealthy people are engrossed by their wealth and protection of it.

[QUOTE=poe4soul]

I don't have a problem with acquisition of wealth. I'm sure there are many people that have true honest lives and are extremely wealthy. But I'm also sure that many extremely wealthy people are engrossed by their wealth and protection of it.[/QUOTE]

Well, we sure are making each other think and read with this hijack.. :-))

I'm sure you're right about some (many?) people engrossed by their wealth... it's a worldly concern, for haves AND have-nots, and all of us in between....

But you mentioned power and stature too... both of which are IMMENSELY competitive, since they aren't measurable without asking oneself "do I have more power than this guy, more stature than that guy?"

And both are up for grabs in government as nowhere else.... the more power government draws into its center, the more tempting those two things become, to more people.

I can at least sue some corporation if I am actually legally mistreated.

There is nowhere to turn when government does this. They just change the rules and tell you to pound sand. And send you a bill.

That's where we're going IMHO.

Have you tried to sue a large corporation? They'll do the same.

I agree that the government, our politicians are engrossed in many wrongs in respect to the the bible, sin, ethics, or some other measure. they're politicians and we can vote them out. We can and it sounds like will have a claim on the constitutionality of the law in 2014...

[QUOTE=poe4soul]Have you tried to sue a large corporation? They'll do the same.

I agree that the government, our politicians are engrossed in many wrongs in respect to the the bible, sin, ethics, or some other measure. they're politicians and we can vote them out. We can and it sounds like will have a claim on the constitutionality of the law in 2014...[/QUOTE]

My greatest fear is that this particular bunch, who have already demonstrated a complete lack of interest in the will of the people and the rule of law, are simply a few fast steps away from negating any input the people have in the near future.

If they're willing to do all that they've done, they're willing to bet it all on canceling/postponing elections or otherwise making sure they stay in power.

The history of the world is RIFE with exactly this sort of thing, done exactly the way they're doing it. And all along the people said "surely that's not what they're doing, is it? Surely not."

I sincerely hope the constitution, and the law, are still functioning even a little bit after another year of this bunch. It does not really seem likely at this juncture.

two more and this sheite threadjack gets to THREE HUNDRED.

THIS.... IS.... GR!!!!!!!!!! (kick)

[QUOTE=daveperkins]My greatest fear is that this particular bunch, who have already demonstrated a complete lack of interest in the will of the people and the rule of law, are simply a few fast steps away from negating any input the people have in the near future.

If they're willing to do all that they've done, they're willing to bet it all on canceling/postponing elections or otherwise making sure they stay in power.

The history of the world is RIFE with exactly this sort of thing, done exactly the way they're doing it. And all along the people said "surely that's not what they're doing, is it? Surely not."

I sincerely hope the constitution, and the law, are still functioning even a little bit after another year of this bunch. It does not really seem likely at this juncture.[/QUOTE]
Anythings a improvement from that bumbling idiot we had. And speaking of what there willing to do. What about the other idiot brother in Florida, and the hanging chads to get GWB elected? Ask anyone on this board from another country about the credibility of our system after that election farce. Are worldwide standing when to a all time low, during his presidency. Just trying for 300 Dave