Juror#8

That's actually a damn good compromise. Never thought about that (civil juries for penalty phase when a board of physician's has already rendered judgment on culpability). I'd definitely be in support of that. And I see your point about the technical aspect. I'd have to say, though, that some of that should be mitigated during voir dire (but then again, that depends on your strategy). As an aside, I was co-counsel on a products liablity case where I was representing a parts manufacturer against a defendent who was suing a toaster company for a design flaw (in the platiff's view - if you placed a bagel in the toaster, it wouldn't pop up enough for you to easily access it so the plantiff had to stick his finger in to retrieve it - causing burns). The plaintiff got the idiotic (but legally intelligent) idea to sue everyone in the chain of distibution - including my client, who just manufactured and supplied the perforated medal screens and coils used to circulate the heat. As we sat there listening to the expert on spring weight governance, the flippin dispositive issue in the case, one juror was asleep and two appeared to be playing tic tac toe on a single pad of paper. It was pretty sad and made me wonder what information they were going to base their votes on.

What does them being black have to do with them being effective politicians? If it is because you don't think that black people can be successful, then fine. We will just agree to disagree. If you think that they were picked because they were black, irrespective of their qualifications, and that is why they've failed - what evidence do you have to support that? How do you know that they were not the most qualified candidate? How many white candidates ran? Kurt Schmoke was the mayor of Baltimore for forever. At the time, there were all kinds of issues in Baltimore - corruption on the docks, fiscal problems, substance abuse concerns within the halls of government. Baltimore is an almost all black town and Kurt Schmoke is black. But......he also has a degree from Yale, a law degree from Harvard and is an Oxford Rhodes Scholar. Was he elected because he was black, in a black town, or because he was profoundly well qualified? What if I told you that Schmoke did a great job with the city and cleaned it up quite nicely? And what does it say when Martin O'Malley (white dude) was elected mayor of Baltimore for 10 years subsequent to Schmoke (99-07)? O'Malley did a phenomenal job for the city. What does that mean? What does it mean that the subsequent mayors have been black...again? This country only elected white candidates for 200+ years. Some of those executives were pathetic and steered the country in a horrible direction. Was Herbert Hoover just president because he was white? Jimmy Carter? George W. Bush? While we're on this topic, how do you explain instances where predominately white, Asian, whatever race, fail miserably to govern a district or municipality? Did they fail because they were white? Asian? Whatever race? Or does that principle only apply in predominately black towns with predominately black representatives? Could it be that - for a variety of reasons - they just couldn't govern effectively? And what does it matter that a black person believes that Detroit's problems would be solved with a white mayor? Could it be that, like you, she profoundly over-simplified this matter?

Don't want to take this thread too much off topic but if you'd allow me to address this question quickly.... Yes, some degree of tort reform would be helpful. However, I hope that tort reform never gets beyond capping non-economic damages. Going to the English Rule, I believe, would only accomplish resticting access to the courts for those who are not financially advantaged. As it is, there are Rule 11s for issues of frivolity. Eliminating juries as finder's of fact in certain civil actions is VERY strong medicine. That's it.

Isn't this happening now? And, in addition, the people who go to the emergency room for Advil, broken ankles, HBP, and other relatively routine matters because they're young, generally healthy, and haven't contemplated any manner of infirmity or health complication, end up raising the premiums for everyone else. In large measure, they don't pay those exorbitant hospital bills. Those costs just get spread to the taxpayer.

And the best part of you was face planted when the John withdrew. And what? Popularity? Who the !@#$ is talking about "popularity"? B word, this ain't highschool. I'm referencing your innability to confront a topic and support a position. Instead of confronting a topic, you say "bad" 10 different ways and explain that you don't need to offer any other detail or explanation or even discuss it further because you have "conviction." If you hadn't noticed, this thread has been less about the ACA and more about what options exist for a functional legislative reform. My point was that there are consituent parts of the legislation that can be implemented into a construct that better accomplishes the overall vision of healthcare reform without the attendant financial and administrative complications. NewEra, I believe Magox, someone else, and I have agreed at one point or another during this thread that reform was appropriate. We've taken to discuss different ideas around that idea of reformation. And that is where a dialectical approach is helpful. But that is obviously not what you're interested in accomplishing. So if your going to simply parrot different synonyms for "bad" in response to everything, shut the !@#$ up, get the !@#$ out, and take your trolling elsewhere. Your crotch stinks and its affecting everyone else's ability to adapt to what would otherwise be a productive environment for discussion. You better fu(ckin appreciate it. I have more where that came from. Zeeeee 2700 hundred pages. Zeeee 2700 hundred pages. It's sooooo ugly and grotesque. It's sooo scary....This is frightening....it's a terrific crash, ladies and gentlemen. It's smoke, and it's in flames now; and the frame is crashing to the ground, not quite to the mooring mast. Oh, the humanity! And all the passengers screaming around here. I told you; it—I can't even talk to people, their friends are out there! Ah! It's... it... it's a... ah! I... I can't talk, ladies and gentlemen. Honest: it's just laying there, mass of smoking wreckage. Ah! And everybody can hardly breathe and talk and the screaming. I... I... I'm sorry. Honest: I... I can hardly breathe. I... I'm going to step inside, where I cannot see it. Charlie, that's terrible. Ah, ah... I can't. Listen, folks; I... I'm gonna have to stop for a minute because [indecipherable] I've lost my voice. This is the worst thing I've ever witnessed. If you don't like it grow a set and get to discussing ways to effectuate some change. Rather than that, you want to bemoan the length of the legislation. Here is a novel idea... write to your Congressman, start a campaign, heck run for office. Do something instead of crying about it and acting as if the length of the legislation is some kind of impediment to action and resourcefulness. There ya go. You're "principles" and "convictions," prevent you from discussing an open question with an open mind. The original question and point of this thread was, in essence, "what do you think about the 80/20 Rule?" To that, you saw fit to reitterate the length of the legislation as if that were dispositive or even casually addressed my question. Does "principle" and "conviction" prevent you from understanding a basic fu(king question or employing even a remedial level of reading comprehension? Me: What's 2+2? Alaska Darin: Red. Me: What has leaves, roots, and in general requires sunlight to grow? Alaska Darin: Vaseline. Give me a break. I'm done with you for this afternoon.

I read you first sentence and stopped to reply. I've NEVER suggested cost controls are a good thing. If you read the context of my statement, I'm asking what is there besides cost controls IF your goal is to "bend the cost curve." I don't know and that's why I'm asking him. I don't agree with cost controls. Period.

Where did I excuse Detroit? In fact, I agree with you about Detroit and it's mis-management. And if we were just discussing political mismanagement, I wouldn't have even responded. We were dancing for a while. But then you began discussing the race of the council-persons. The music stopped when you suggested that race, color, or ethinicity had anything to do with Detroit's woes. White, black, whomever, don't have a monopoly on political corruption or mismanagement. That is all.

Can you develop this point some more? It sounds like you have an idea for health reform that in principally different. How can you address the cost of health care short of cost controls though? Are you referring to allowing individuals to go to different states for health insurance so as to stimulate competition?

No. I believe that it does what I mentioned in post #1 that it does: it provides a beginning point for tackling the extant care subsidy debacle. I said, very clearly, that I like much of the ACA and I'm glad that someone had the courage to take it on. It is a floor, not the ceiling. It is finally an effort to deal with a VERY real problem. Everyone else would rather complain about the escalating costs and not deal with the problem systemically. Everyone else for the last 40 years before the current WH talked but did little to nothing. This WH did something, though imperfectly; and I'm appreciative of the courage it took to do that. There is also much that I have concerns about: I think that the bill itself is bloated and can be trimmed down to address issues much more proximately and without the added cost; the exchanges that take effect in 2014 will likely have governance and logistical challenges; the administrative cost structure will likely be burdensome and rife with overages, scam, and inconsistencies. I've delved into the legislation enough to know that there are things that I like and things that I don't like. Some just see "_________ trillion," "giveaway," "poor-people," "Fox," "mandate," etc. And they read/listen to what it takes to support those themes. Not sure this country can pursue greatness being that profoundly discourteous to nuance. That's the point, you're not disagreeing with me. If we had a reasoned disagreement than far be it for me to call you anything but a principled opponent. I'd respect that and move on. But it is intellectually suspect when someone says that everything in opposition to them is a lie - in order to insulate their beliefs from criticism or re-evaluation. Polls - lie. Blogs - lie. Articles - lie. Newspapers - lie. The only one talking in absolutes is YOU ([paraphrasing] ACA is bad; it sucks; don't care about you; evidence is partisan). The only one (as between you and I) speaking dialectically, is me ("the bill has challenges," "it's a floor," "it's a canvas to be improved upon..."). I haven't spoken in absolutes. My only compliment to the bill was that there are certain provisions that people - republicans, democrats, and independents - really like. You need the mirror.

So basically you don't agree because you don't agree and any support will always be the product of some scam to convince you that what you're already convinced of is not the case. It's the adhominem defense and it's cyclical. If you begin with the principle that everyone is lying to you, you've already established your basis for disagreement and an "out" for every situation. Gallup, CNN, Kaiser, Real Clear Politics (which is an aggregation of Rasmussen, CNN, CBS, NBC, Washington Post, Fox, Gallup and possibly some others) are all lying to you and they just cherry picked data to advance an agenda to take your guns, tax you incessantly, and give your money to colored crack fiends. You're better left to Alaska, confortably apart from those who may "hurt" you, in drunken bliss raving about the coming apocalypse, Ruby Ridge, Manchurian Candidates, and implanted data chips, before you inevitably pass out and have to be carried home by your wife. You can't debate with someone who sets as a groundrule that anything after the word "go" is a lie.

I'm right. At the conclusion of this post, I site the evidence. I don't expect a response from you or anyone else for that matter because you're just advancing the PPP wisdom that: 1. You are correct. 2. When you are not correct, see point #1. But if you're interested in edification, check out the polls and get back to me so that we can discuss how you were incorrect. You see, unlike you, my understanding of politics is comprised of more than Fox News punditry and the anemic voices of bigotry, stereotype and bias that constitute your friend network (not talking race here). As I mentioned earlier - you REALLY have to step away from this belief that the opinions here reflect the overall domestic sentiment on ANYTHING, whatsoever. This place is an echo chamber. There are a few independent voices, some on the left, some moderate - but the lion share of substantive opinion that is expressed here on a daily basis is decidedly right of center - like "just-to-the-left-of-anarchy" right of center. If you don't make it a point to hate everything done by this WH, or if you try to rationalize policy bases - you're "with them." That is why nothing can get get accomplished legislatively in this piece. Because everyone is positioning for the next election - such that the effort to effectuate anything becomes secondary to trying to be voted into a position of power so as to be next in line to get nothing accomplished 4 years hence. And you idiots willingly submit to this fraud. That's why they laugh at you. You're a puppet show to these folks. And instead of endeavoring to do something about it, you'd rather reply to substantive points with queer-ass smilies that further evidence that you don't have a fu(king clue. It would be more productive to have a conversation with someone actively sniffing latex paint because at least then there is entertainment value in the person's cluelessnes as a result of their myriad physiological changes. And though you hail from Alaska, that's not even a good excuse...because they have newspapers there, and even dial up internet by now. Anyway, you blithely responded to my comment with an idiotic (though not entirely suprising) smilie. So here, again, is the support. I already know that NO ONE will respond to it. Why? Because it will disrupt your paradigm. You'd rather not amend what you consider to be a perfectly good hypothesis. Here is the truth AK, despite what your idiot uncle may have told you about life, you don't have all the answers and your small community of peers is likely ill equipped to trustee for the rest of the country. The "truth" is somewhere in between me and you with neither of us being any closer than the other but with one of us certain that they are. 3rdnlng was critical of me for being supportive of certain provisions of the ACA. Well what about the identified Republicans in the following polls? Are they all in the closet for liking certain provisions? My original point was that MANY people, in some cases a strong majority, like the constituent parts of Obamacare. You "lol'd." Well, here ya go: http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/upload/8285-F.pdf http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/02/24/rel4ha.pdf http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/24/cnn-poll-health-care-provisions-popular-but-overall-bills-unpopular/ http://pollingmatters.gallup.com/2012/03/paradox-of-affordable-care-act-and.html http://doubledippolitics.com/2012/03/25/polling-shows-people-support-majority-of-obamacare-parts-oppose-law/ And on the first link above, in the Kaiser poll, for 12 pages of polling data it talks about how the country dislikes Obamacare. But on page 10, it segments the bill and the polling becomes very instructive.

Come out of what closet? Because we disagree on a political point, or two, or three, there is an idelogical excommunication? There is a such thing as a moderate in this country. I'm definitely a moderate. What the republican party is succeeding at doing is alienating folks like me with an all or nothing partisan divide. I happen to think that health care reform was long overdue and I was personally glad that someone tackled it. Why? Because the costs of people going to the emergency room for preventative maintenance and routine checkups was and is being spread to premium paying consumers in the form of higher prices, bigger deductibles, larger co-pays, and escalating premiums. Something needed to be and needs to be done to curtail that. Obamacare is a start with some damn good ideas. It got the proverbial "ball" rolling. And I say that as someone who didn't vote for the man. Again, what closet? I intended to vote for Roemer but will likely vote Romney (begrudgingly) because VA, where I'll be voting in November, is a swing state. Personally, I would rather have one horrible candidate (because Romney is !@#$ing incredibly pathetic) that I agree with 40% of the time, than a considerably more horrible candidate that I agree with 20% of the time. Is that ok with you? I like the president personally and think he has some good ideas. I think he is a smart man, who tried his best to do a good job. Did I vote for him though, no! So what does this have to do with my political or ideological sincerity? If someone admires a rainbow after a storm it doesn't make them an LGBT? Not everything is black and white. There is a grey area and a periphery. Why are conservatives so frightened by being infiltrated by diversity, or accommodation, or compromise, or conciliation, or imagination, or concurrence, or synthesis, or "different"? Do they want a choir? Sometimes it seems like people post things here to illicit the response that they were thinking anyway so as to affirm their extant sentiment. It's like an ongoing effort to convince oneself that because 20 people on a Western NY sports forums feel similarly, that represents a microcasm of the world at large or, at least, any sensible/rationale American. It couldn't be that the majority here are from Western NY, an area that is quite conservative politically. You want to soften that political erection, go to the poltical forum on the Redskins site. It's the invewrse of everything posted here. They have a '3rdnlng' who posts about the conservative media bias, and 8 threads a day about Bain, Seamus, haircuts, firings, Massachussets, corporate practices, George Bush, blah blah blah... Newsflash - it's all wrong-headed. To be sure, on the Terps forum that I frequent it's the exact opposite. 90% are happy slappy progressive and I'm arguing the case for fiscal responsibility and devolution. They think the whole damn political universe thinks like they do because the 40 people who post there are pretty much in ideological lock step. How about we have an honest debate (tomorrow, when I wake up, at 2) about what you do and don't agree with. I asked about the 80/20 rule and it became a indictment of my personal politics. Whether you like my type or not, I identify myself as a republican. I largely vote republican, and I have considerably conservative sentiments on some issues. Will I ever vote "D"? Maybe. But I like the vision of fiscal responsibility, self-awareness, autonomy, self-sufficiency, and the ideal of a reduced federal presence that the republicans advocate. I also like the altruism inherent in progressive politics. But here is the rub: I feel that the overall conservative vision of self-sufficiency is more sustainable ideologically than a long term vision of politically mandated altruism. I'm just hoping that the current institutionalized altruism can hold up long enough for the conservative vision of self sufficiency to be implemented institutionally in a way that is, at least theoretically, attainable by all and doesn't create a permanent sub-class of humanity that goes hard core on some proletariat bull schit. Anyway, we've always been civil. I appreciate that. Still don't know what is the "this" that is "beyond that."

So I am on record as being in support of much of the Affordable Care Act. I generally favor programs that help to sustain the less fortunate and abjectly impoverished so long is there is an aim, vision, goal, and it's sustainable, and it doesn't place an undue or unfair burden on the American taxpayer. Also, I tend to favor programs that profess to mitigate corruption amongst industries that deal in ensuring individual health and well being. I'm also of the belief that people like the constituent parts of Obamacare. However body politic are largely dolts - so once a policy is demonized and becomes characterized as a pejorative, then it stays that way - even when, in essence, they agree with the sum if explained constituently. Or people just think "Dem - bad" even if the idea is novel and has potential to be improved upon. There are a lot of cool little parts to Obamacare. I've conversed with folks who say that they hate Obamacare then later on in the conversation express delight that they can retain their 25 year old grad student daughter on their health plan. Weird huh? Isn't it a net positive that females can't be denied coverage any longer, or that pre-existing conditions cannot be the basis for a health coverage denial? So that leads me to the thrust of this Friday night diatribe - the 80/20 rule. Basically: "Health insurers must spend at least 80 percent of the money they collect in premiums on medical claims or improvements in health care quality and no more than 20 percent on everything else — administration, marketing, advertising, profits to investors, executive bonuses, etc." AND "If mandatory reports to state and federal monitoring agencies show a health insurer is spending too little on health care, the insurer is required to rebate the difference to health plan enrollees, either in the form of a check or as a discount on future premiums. Rebates to group health plans go to the sponsoring employer, with the expectation that the cost savings will be passed on to employees." The 80/20 Rule took effect on January 1, 2011 and the first rebates are due by August 1, 2012. With the rebate, will include this letter: http://cciio.cms.gov/resources/files/mlr-notice-1-to-subscribers-in-individual-market.pdf Obviously note the timing of those letters. It will impact the election in some way. More reading: http://thepage.time.com/2012/05/11/sebelius-forthcoming-blog-post/ http://www.registerguard.com/web/opinion/28003760-47/health-rebates-care-insurance-insurers.html.csp

Lol. Yea yea. Point still stands.

Well really only just 7. I see voting as a fundamental right. There are many ways to substantiate identity. It should take a compelling reason and something narrowly tailored to accomplish a very specific and compelling objective to restrict voting access. 2 - yea, I agree that discrimination in the *government* is slim to none. But because of the approximately one-generation separation between the last vestiges of Jim Crow/segregation (basically beginning at the point of full school integration) to today, I think government support for affirmative action programs is warranted. I know that wasn't your point though so drop 2 from the dispute list. 8 - just don't care that much. Only point there is that I see pricey athletic shoes as more of a "want" commodity and gas as a "need."

Great list! It's both funny and sad - largely because much of it is true. Principled problems with 2, 7, 8 though. But 70% is good enough at most colleges and universites.

The most Corrupt Town in America - Bell, CA - population: 39,000. City Council-persons salary: 800,000 annually. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/bell/ http://gawker.com/5644817/bell-california-americas-most-corrupt-town http://articles.cnn.com/2010-09-21/justice/california.bell.arrests_1_luis-artiga-misappropriation-victor-bello?_s=PM:CRIME "Now, does that "look like America"TM? Where's the diversity? I know diversity works. It has for years, but diversity means what it says. There is nothing diverse about that group. "Are you telling me that in that entire city, there isn't one white black, Asian, etc. who isn't more qualified to be on that council?"TM HUGE Corruption amongst Public Officials and Law Enforcement http://www.todaysthv.com/news/article/176587/2/Press-conference-names-Helena-West-Helena-officers-arrested "Now, does that "look like America"TM? Where's the diversity? I know diversity works. It has for years, but diversity means what it says. There is nothing diverse about that group. "Are you telling me that in that entire city, there isn't one white anglo-american of second generation eastern-european but, non-russian, descent; Asian, etc. who isn't more qualified to be on that council a public offical?"TM Chicago - MOST CORRUPT CITY IN THE NATION; Illinois - THIRD MOST CORRUPT STATE IN THE NATION; 4 of ILLINOIS' 7 Governors since the 70s CONVICTED... http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/02/14/chicago-called-most-corrupt-city-in-nation/ Look at Illinois' governor's here "Now, does that "look like America"TM? Where's the diversity? I know diversity works. It has for years, but diversity means what it says. There is nothing diverse about that group. "Are you telling me that in that entire city state, there isn't one white black, anglo-american of second generation eastern-european but, non-russian, descent; Asian, Pacific Islander, etc. who isn't more qualified to be on that council Governor?TM Hehe....love using the dopiest arguments for diversity against the clowns. And in case you are wondering: "is this a racial argument?" F yeah, it is. But who has made race the operative concept here? When your only qualification for office in Detroit Illinois is your skin color, when the cronyism and corruption has turned to gangster level criminal activity, and especially..." Your exact words - both the race-related sentiment, and the ideological sentiment - are equally applicable to instances, people, groups, and places, that you couldn't have hoped to contrive and certainly didn't portend when writing your ham-handed, one-sided, partisan diatribe. Translation: When you take your blinder's off, stop looking at things so myopically, and stop trying to attribute public corruption to party, ideology, or phenotypical characteristics in order to score points amongst a bloodthirsty conservative contingent on a sports forum - you'll realize that this **** happens everyday and is perpetrated by all racial types - white, black, whatever - at every level of government, and in most towns and states - red and blue. Politicians are only as faithful as their options.

That's the point (bolded statement above). Most use the system for what it's indended for - short term sustenance until opportunity or serendipity happens. Many take advantage of the system. But then again, many take advantage of good will, charity, pregnant cows, and double-tips on already instated 15% gratuity for parties of 6 or more. Doesn't mean we should get rid of those things. Maybe a tweak; maybe reformation - but abandonment of a program that has accomplished it's stated objective (for good folks like yourself and your wife) more than it has served as a conduit though which JaQuita, Big Debo and Little Minus Sign can replenish their 40 oz. stash, is both strong medicine and over-reach. You and your family are both the proof and the pudding. BTW...haven't voted for a Dem since Clinton (well there was that Steny Hoyer mistake in 2000...but anyway...) so I'm definitely not "on the left" but I do agree with managed social programs so I thought that I'd opine...

For whatever it's worth, I do think that it's interesting that in 2004 the pronouncements constantly, everywhere, all the time, to anyone willing to listen, was how democrats were ill-prepared to keep the country safe. Even in 2008, John McCain was on a crusade to paint himself as the candidate that can keep the country safe from the threat of international incursion. Remember the Biden comment during the Dem primaries and how the right pounced? Something that was so meaningful, such a political power sword, such a talking point to shift the winds of political public opinion, is so much of an after-thought now. I remember hearing people say that the right was trying ardently to scare body politic into a frenzy to secure votes. The left said that the right was less interested in the exercise of domestic security but more interested in how that paradigm can be used to influence a vote count. At the time I didn't believe it. But it's becoming increasingly difficult to explain away the dedicated lack of interest coupled with re-purposed criticism. It's weird. It's actually disingenous.

/sarcasm You know, when Jauronimo and some others are sarcastic they get the venerable "well played" response. I thought my post was quite witty but it was obviously lacking something in the spice department. I have to work on my sarcasm. I'll get a "well played" this year.

I heard the knock on him is arm strength, touch, accuracy, and unwillingness to take chances. Sounds like Trent Edwards to me.

Classic.... Troll B.S.

Where did you meet him? BTW, love the pick. Position of need and BPA.

According to McShay... -4.39 40 yard dash -slot receiver -will push for time as a returner -Likes the pick

I'm just trying to find a scouting report on him.