Day by Day (3-18)
Antonio E. Gonzalez
<http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2009/03/18/>
- Yes, a bad money-saving idea when one thinks about it, one which
never got beyond the suggestion stage, and perhaps a subtle way to
point out why we need universal health care.
- The AIG thing started well before January 20th, so if any President
should be getting the blame here . . .
- "Functioning Islamic Democracy"? Apparently the first panel was
inaccurate, and they're actually in Turkey.
Also, it seems Chris Muir's projection may have accidentally
revealed a little more than intended. Besides the usual Bush
Administration antics projected onto Obama, it seems this may explain
how Muir's been "coping" since Election Day, and why DbD has been
unusually surreal and nonsensical lately!:
<http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2009/03/14/>
--
- ReFlex76
Peter B. Steiger
> - Yes, a bad money-saving idea when one thinks about it, one which never
> got beyond the suggestion stage, and perhaps a subtle way to point out
> why we need universal health care.
I don't know what kind of lead time that strip has, but the O just
announced he was dropping the proposal as of yesterday afternoon. Up to
that point he was forging ahead despite the protests not only from every
vet group on the face of the earth but a united front by BOTH parties in
Congress rejecting the idea.
Of course it never stood a chance with that much opposition, but the very
fact that he even considered it speaks ill of his promise to "restore the
sacred trust with our veterans".
What a maroon.
--
Peter B. Steiger
Cheyenne, WY
If you must reply by email, you can reach me by placing zeroes
where you see stars: wypbs.**1 at gmail.com.
deto...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 07:28:12 -0700, Antonio E. Gonzalez sez:
>
> > - Yes, a bad money-saving idea when one thinks about it, one which never
> > got beyond the suggestion stage, and perhaps a subtle way to point out
> > why we need universal health care.
>
> I don't know what kind of lead time that strip has, but the O just
> announced he was dropping the proposal as of yesterday afternoon. Up to
> that point he was forging ahead despite the protests not only from every
> vet group on the face of the earth but a united front by BOTH parties in
> Congress rejecting the idea.
Chris Muir works inside less than a 12 hour lead time. Today's strip
reflects your information.
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2009/03/19/
In fact there have been a surprising number of times when Chris has
covered an issue before I've had to read about it and/or hear about it
from any of my regular news sources.
> Of course it never stood a chance with that much opposition, but the very
> fact that he even considered it speaks ill of his promise to "restore the
> sacred trust with our veterans".
>
> What a maroon.
>
He's making it hard to give him a chance to get a feel for the
office. I'm really trying to be charitable about that, too.
--
Regards,
Dann
Mike Marshall
>He's making it hard to give him a chance to get a feel for the
>office. I'm really trying to be charitable about that, too.
A good head D00d considers *everything* and then only does the
stuff that make sense.
-Mike
Carl Fink
> Of course it never stood a chance with that much opposition, but the very
> fact that he even considered it speaks ill of his promise to "restore the
> sacred trust with our veterans".
>
> What a maroon.
You realize the proposal was never to take a cent from any veteran, right?
--
Carl Fink nitpi...@nitpicking.com
Read my blog at blog.nitpicking.com. Reviews! Observations!
Stupid mistakes you can correct!
deto...@hotmail.com
> On 2009-03-19, Peter B. Steiger <see....@for.email.address> wrote:
>
> > Of course it never stood a chance with that much opposition, but the very
> > fact that he even considered it speaks ill of his promise to "restore the
> > sacred trust with our veterans".
>
> > What a maroon.
>
> You realize the proposal was never to take a cent from any veteran, right?
> --
The proposal was to charge the veteran's insurance company for the
care being provided. The problem with that is that most policies have
maximum annual or lifetime coverage amounts.
Many of the wounds received are not cheap to treat/fix. Many veterans
require a lifetime of support in dealing with those injuries.
Not only is it unimaginable that a veteran's health insurance policy
may max out, it is predictable.
Add to that the problem of insurance companies basing the rates
charged to a given employer based on the health of that employer's
labor pool. Given that a single case of cancer can cause a dramatic
increase in heath insurance rates for a small company, what do you
suppose might happen if a single wounded veteran were added to the
mix?
Veterans already comprise a significant disproportion of the homeless
in America. Making it harder for veterans to obtain gainful
employment isn't exactly what I would call helpful.
The proposal might not have taken money directly out of the veteran's
pockets. It would have eventually taken money out of their pockets
indirectly.
Let's change things around. If a private employer....United Rusty
Tools Without Safety Equipment....causes a serious injury to an
employee, shouldn't URTWSE be on the hook to pay for the treatement
for that injury? Or is it OK if URTWSE simply asks the rest of us to
pay for the problem?
--
Regards,
Dann
Antonio E. Gonzalez
wrote:
>On 2009-03-19, Peter B. Steiger <see...@for.email.address> wrote:
>
>> Of course it never stood a chance with that much opposition, but the very
>> fact that he even considered it speaks ill of his promise to "restore the
>> sacred trust with our veterans".
>>
>> What a maroon.
>
>You realize the proposal was never to take a cent from any veteran, right?
One would think the libertarian-types would welcome veterans
getting off publically-funded health insurance, and onto those
ever-superior private plans . . .
--
- ReFlex76
Antonio E. Gonzalez
>On Mar 19, 10:10 pm, Carl Fink <ca...@panix.com> wrote:
>> On 2009-03-19, Peter B. Steiger <see....@for.email.address> wrote:
>>
>> > Of course it never stood a chance with that much opposition, but the very
>> > fact that he even considered it speaks ill of his promise to "restore the
>> > sacred trust with our veterans".
>>
>> > What a maroon.
>>
>> You realize the proposal was never to take a cent from any veteran, right?
>> --
>> Carl Fink nitpick...@nitpicking.com
>>
>> Read my blog at blog.nitpicking.com. Reviews! Observations!
>> Stupid mistakes you can correct!
>
>The proposal was to charge the veteran's insurance company for the
>care being provided. The problem with that is that most policies have
>maximum annual or lifetime coverage amounts.
>
>Many of the wounds received are not cheap to treat/fix. Many veterans
>require a lifetime of support in dealing with those injuries.
>
Sounds like an argument for universal health care!
>Not only is it unimaginable that a veteran's health insurance policy
>may max out, it is predictable.
>
Another argument for universal health care!
>Add to that the problem of insurance companies basing the rates
>charged to a given employer based on the health of that employer's
>labor pool. Given that a single case of cancer can cause a dramatic
>increase in heath insurance rates for a small company, what do you
>suppose might happen if a single wounded veteran were added to the
>mix?
>
Yet another argument for universal health care!
>Veterans already comprise a significant disproportion of the homeless
>in America. Making it harder for veterans to obtain gainful
>employment isn't exactly what I would call helpful.
>
If only companies didn't have to worry about paying for their
employee's health insurance, maybe someone bigger could do it, like in
every other industrialized nation . . .
>The proposal might not have taken money directly out of the veteran's
>pockets. It would have eventually taken money out of their pockets
>indirectly.
>
If only it was already covered . . .
>Let's change things around. If a private employer....United Rusty
>Tools Without Safety Equipment....causes a serious injury to an
>employee, shouldn't URTWSE be on the hook to pay for the treatement
>for that injury?
Actually, it's called Worker's Compensation . . .
Or is it OK if URTWSE simply asks the rest of us to
>pay for the problem?
One way or the other, the rest of us pay anyway; maybe with some
universal way to cover everything, it would all smooth out . . .
Hmmm, there seems to be a pattern here, one with what should be a
very obvious conclusion . . .
--
- ReFlex76
JC Dill
>> Let's change things around. If a private employer....United Rusty
>> Tools Without Safety Equipment....causes a serious injury to an
>> employee, shouldn't URTWSE be on the hook to pay for the treatement
>> for that injury?
>
> Actually, it's called Worker's Compensation . . .
Yes, and when someone works for the government in a job called
"soldier", then it's called Veteran's Benefits.
In certain jobs, especially high risk jobs, the cost of providing
job-related health care is very high. That cost should be contained
within the organization that puts their people at risk.
I don't object to the administration thinking outside the box, as long
as the right decision is made when all the input and feedback has been
received. Unlike the prior administration, this one is listening to
feedback and revising the proposals accordingly. The prior
administration just did whatever it damn well wanted (for the first 6
years at least, when it also controlled Congress) and to hell with the
naysayers.
jc
Dann
@news.motzarella.org.
> The prior
> administration just did whatever it damn well wanted (for the first 6
> years at least, when it also controlled Congress) and to hell with the
> naysayers.
So do you think that Mr. Obama should have listened to the naysayers with
regard to stem cell policy instead of making that recent policy change?
--
Regards,
Dann
blogging at http://web.newsguy.com/dainbramage/blog.htm
Freedom works; each and every time it is tried.
Dann
news:04c7s4dq92b96faj7...@4ax.com.
>>Add to that the problem of insurance companies basing the rates
>>charged to a given employer based on the health of that employer's
>>labor pool. Given that a single case of cancer can cause a dramatic
>>increase in heath insurance rates for a small company, what do you
>>suppose might happen if a single wounded veteran were added to the
>>mix?
>>
>
> Yet another argument for universal health care!
Or at least an argument for letting small businesses buy into larger
health insurance pools. [i.e. state employees pool, federal employees
pool, etc.]
We could do an awful lot to fix what is broken in the health care system
without the concomitant damage that would inevitably result from
nationalizing it.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
>On 20 Mar 2009, JC Dill said the following in news:gq0jd0$tq3$1
>@news.motzarella.org.
>
>> The prior
>> administration just did whatever it damn well wanted (for the first 6
>> years at least, when it also controlled Congress) and to hell with the
>> naysayers.
>
>So do you think that Mr. Obama should have listened to the naysayers with
>regard to stem cell policy instead of making that recent policy change?
He probably did, noticed they still made no sense, then went and
did the right thing; nice that "science" is no longer a dirty word in
the White House . . .
--
- ReFlex76
Dann
news:9u3bs4h8fvm4u2me4...@4ax.com.
If you think "science" had anything to do with Mr. Obama's recent
decision, then you probably also believe that every gun owner is
obligated to run out the front door and shoot the first person he/she
sees.
I happen to agree with Mr. Obama's decision WRT that particular policy.
But at the same time, I know that it had nothing to do with the
application of "science".
nickelshrink
*Nothing* ? If you're saying it was a politically motivated,
i can see that, but once he announced that such decisions will
be based on science and not ideology, this could only be
implemented under that policy if it had a strong scientific
basis. So it's both. Can policies have only one basis or
motivation?
--
pax,
ruth
Save trees AND money! Buy used books!
http://stores.ebay.com/Noir-and-More-Books-and-Trains
Dann
@mid.individual.net.
> *Nothing* ? If you're saying it was a politically motivated,
> i can see that, but once he announced that such decisions will
> be based on science and not ideology, this could only be
> implemented under that policy if it had a strong scientific
> basis. So it's both. Can policies have only one basis or
> motivation?
Yup. Nothing.
In general, science is not policy. It can influence policy, but it is
not policy.
Policy is based on ideology or morals.
Mr. Bush....and his supporters....believe that life begins at conception.
[IMO, there is a scientific argument that could be made for that
position, but that isn't relevant to the current issue.]
Mr. Bush....and his supporters....and a bunch of people that didn't
support him....believe that innocent life ought to be protected. At
least, that seems to be the general justification for our laws against
murder as well as the general human behavior that causes a half a dozen
rescuers to die in a second avalanche while looking for the one person
that got hit by the first avalanche.
Mr. Obama...and his supporters....believe that life begins at some point
after conception. Therefore they don't see the use of embryos for such
research as violating the general belief that innocent life ought to be
protected.
[And I suppose there are people....like me....who believe that while life
does begin at conception, the potential benefits of stem cell research
involving embryos that would be otherwise tossed out with the bio-
hazardous trash are worth the change in policy.]
At the very least, if Mr. Obama's policy towards stem cell research is
"pro-science", then is his policy against cloning "anti-science". What
material difference is there between the two issues that would justify
such divergent policy positions?
After all, cloning will only produce a new individual that is genetically
identical to the first. The one doesn't replace the other.
Science says that we can build enough nuclear weapons to blow up the
entire world. Morals are what tell us that we ought to build them.
I suppose the other option is to believe that Mr. Bush really is the
illiterate, anti-science, cartoon character that the pundits have created
of him. I prefer to believe that most Americans are smarter than that.
Heather Kendrick
Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Mr. Bush....and his supporters....and a bunch of people that didn't
> support him....believe that innocent life ought to be protected.
Innocent human life, please. For some reason other animals don't count.
Heather