Rocky

How do you know this? In fact, Single Payer medical coverage would do just the opposite. Sure, the myth of government bureaucracy is ever present. However, government has NO monopoly on bureaucracy. MOST private medical plans ARE bureaucracies, especially HMOs. Having a Single Payer that is NOT obligated to keep 20% as budgeted "profit" only REDUCES cost. Other aspects of this type of system make it even more desirable. Standardized electronic medical records VASTLY speeds access between primary care and specialist providers; between labs/x-ray/EKG, and direct caregivers. Further, economies of scale in purchasing meds and other equipment/supplies will also greatly reduce costs. This type of system is ALREADY in place and in use in the US. Now, I know there are people who can complain about it, but the fact remains that the VA Medical system works on a large scale. The fact that the vast majority of the costs are born by taxpayers means that there is the ever present need to bug Congress for adequate funding to meet the needs of all covered veterans. With a universal Single Payer system, with employer contributions comparable to what is being done today -- with a zillion different bureaucracies responsible for evaluating claims for payment -- costs would be drastically reduced from what they are today. NO doubt about it, indeed.

I coulda sworn you were describing the current prez (and his parents, nicer that they are then him)... then, after I first posted THIS post, I read CW's and Hap's entries... so, I guess I'm not the only one who thought that.

I musta been very encouraging to have such a wonderful Doc... and I'm very happy about it too.

Well... though it's obviously not the best news, it does sound like fairly good news. No doubt doing whatever else you can do to keep your health intact will help your leg too... Glad you can still dance! So, you got your own Dr. McDreamy? I bet he's a youngster too... a lot of docs these days around here seem to be in their 30s... which feels a bit strange, but when they know what they're talking about it's okay anyway. :)

Which Stoops? Not the one from Tucson...? I took care of the new year skin a couple of weeks ago... and I'm glad I did! tnks TomS

Hey niKa... It depends on who you ask!!! How's that leg doing?

Eagle, Are you SURE that's "normal"? :D (just kidding... but, good for you anyway!)

Must be REALLY old... because the AFDC program ceased to exist with enactment of the Welfare Reform Act of 1996... replaced with TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) Block Grants to states allowing the state (of California for example) to determine the structure of welfare assistance programs that followed... but Congress still established time limits on any given family's eligibility.

News flash! The evening news on the local CBS station ( kpho.com ) had a blurb (tonight) for people wondering what's going on with Gil Grissom (actually, William Petersen)... they said that he's taking time off from taping CSI so that he can be in a stage gig in Rhode Island.... and will be back in a few weeks (which, of course, he said in the last episode he appeared in). And while I'm at it... how about the guy filling in (not as boss..., that's Willows). Liev Schrieber was the Manchurian Candidate... in the recent remake of the 50s or 60s vintage Sinatra version. The character, Mike Keppler... is certainly a strange one.

Sounds like Bing Crosby to me... and perhaps only a little like Como.

Or perhaps about the Boys of Summer SWINGING for the fences!

I disagree ChasUFarley... HOWEVER... IF the law (if it were to pass) were ENFORCED, then certainly it would quickly fill up the correctional facilities. BUT like many immigration laws (which are OFTEN not enforced, for similar reasons) it will be ignored. Law enforcement agencies will say "we don't have the resources to enforce this." And they will be correct. THAT is why I believe the ONLY thing such a law would do is further exacerbate custody battles in divorce cases.... and as I said before, that's VERY BAD all around... but mostly for the kids. A parallel to another socially controversial topic -- abortion. If abortion is RE-outlawed, abortion will NOT be eliminated as a birth control method. Abortion would, instead, go underground. Doing so would cause a public health catastrophe... as abortions would no longer be subject to the regulation of sanitary conditions in hospitals and/or licensed clinics. I do NOT approve of abortion. But I know that to stop (well, really to only reduce the number of) abortions, an indirect route must be taken, with more preventative strategies. So to with spanking. Outlawing it won't eliminate it. Only providing societal conditions that reduce stress in the lives of parents AND provide for effective disciplinary techniques/strategies without spanking/hitting/beating or any variation thereof -- has any chance of reducing whatever problem may exist in a family where spanking occurs more than on a rare occasion and/or which is more than just a light, quick attention getter that doesn't provide more than a very brief sting. Just my opinion.

Hey good buddy Zshot... me thinks that if you ever have the pleasure of (responibility for) parenting a young child... you might have more compassion for overwhelmed parents! However, you still might have a good point... ok, you (DO) have more than one good point. Children should definitely NOT be beaten... no question about that. AND obviously there's still plenty of debate about spanking. The biggest downside I see to such an ominous (potential) law is that it would UNdoubtedly be used most by divorcing parents in contested custody cases to gain legal advantage AND to alienate a child against the other parent. And THAT is VERY BAD all around.

Oh, I thought you had the source from which you took the quote... doesn't it say that (apparently AS OF the date of that court decision): "Neither Republicans nor Democrats nor a broad range of interest groups is prepared to support an employer sanction program that actually would work.” ?? Now, I think we know that the last Congress, which was of the same party as the prez, did NOT effect ANY helpful immigration related measures... I'm also thinking that some leaders from the new Congress have expressed a desire to deal with immigration reform... and that the new Congress is likely to be better able to put something together that can make it to the prez, which the prez would want to sign... Sooo... I suppose we could be keeping a lookout for this kind of provision in any immigration legislation this year.

CoolWaters, What is the date of that court decision? Having that information may help put that insight in perspective. Thanks

Very thought provoking questions Kathy... tnks. :)

Nor have I heard... however, LG's profile shows that he was logged in this afternoon...

AND changing the subject back AWAY from ME... Indeed... and not that it matters much at this point, but the idea of hitting businesses in the pocketbook came up in Arizona a couple years back... introduced by State Sen. Bill Brotherton D-Phoenix, in a legislature in which both the House and Senate were (and still are, btw) controlled by the Rs. Guess what happened to Mr. Brotherton's proposal. Well, IF it had been made law already, you'd have heard about it, and been able to point to it's either success or failure in addressing the problem... BUT the argument against the proposal at the time was that it would "hurt small businesses." Now, please understand, templelady... I AGREE with you. The ONLY thing that gets the attention of the businesses is to hit them hard in the pocketbook. Well, the idea IS gathering momentum in plenty of states and in Congress. I don't know how far the lawmakers will take it, but we should keep our ears and eyes open to try to find out.

Gawrsh Rhino... didn't know your skin was THAT thin... that "repugnican" comment wasn't aimed at you anyway... that's what I call elected right wingers... generally speaking. AND please don't be putting words in my mouth. Text in RED above (my emphasis of YOUR quote) is NOT from ME... Oh, yes... I don't want to forget... Rhino... I suppose I should thank you for making this about ME? ...rather than about the topic that Hap started...

Well Doc Sudo... I'm NOT a Mac user... I understand the F1 KEY... but the humor being connected to the F1 Mirage fighter plane... I did NOT get. And I served in the USAF. The work horse fighter plane when I was in was the F4 Phantom. The F-15 was just being introduced. I saw Harriers on TV, but not in real life... The most exotic plane I ever saw in person was the SR-71. Now THAT was awesome! And still is. But even that's relegated to graveyards and museums because satellite technology rendered it obsolete as a recon intelligence gathering tool. And then there were the countless C-130s (I rode in one once... on my way to the USA to go to ROA) and C-141s which I believe have also been decommissioned... and replaced by the C-17 STOL cargo plane. (Short Take Off and Landing). C-17s were only in the dreamed of (and maybe on the drawing board) stage when I was in.

Probably BOTH! :D

You, my friend, would NOT be the only one! :blink:

23 days...

I vote for the Minnesota Twins. just kidding!

Maybe that guy was putting together an audition tape to replace Jay Leno... after all, it was a RIP OFF of Jaywalking. It would be funny if it weren't tragically sad. And I thought I saw the Alamo (San Antonio, TX), and a truck with a Dallas Cowboys star (probably in TX).