KRC

Do you have a link or more details on what he is saying or doing?

I answered your question. Again, we get beack to your lack of reading comprehension (as evidenced by both my and the monkey's posts). Bush Bad.

Don't even bother. You Bush apologists cannot provide any insight into this thread.

Why would you explore all options? Only stupid people explore all options and ramifications of all options. Just turn your brain off and say Bush Bad.

Why do I even bother... Bush Bad. Anything and everything is nothing more than Bush Bad. I wish I could turn my brain off and become a blind Bush Bad lemming like you and anyone who doesn't agree with you is automatically a Bush apologist. That thinking thingy is sooooo hard.

I said they had it. I didn't say they used it.

Seymour Hersh? What, was Art Bell busy? The government has plans for every contingency and every scenario.

Yet another reason why American companies should not be running our ports.

Wit is on the list and I have the recipe done, but it has not been brewed yet. It is basically a clone of Hoegaarden. The Poor Richard's is aging nicely (I LOVE this one. Initial taste is a slight hint of the Special Roast, but it quickly disappears into a smooth molassas finish. Hop is EKG and it is subtle.). The tripel is coming along, but still needs a few months, the Blonde will be bottled this weekend. I will be brewing an Amber Ale this weekend (converted my 2nd place Amber from Extract to AG and this is my first attempt at it). Next weekend will be a Ginseng beer and then either a Wit or Weizen Doublebock. I also want an IIPA, but I do not want to tie up a fermenter for six months. I also want to do an Anchor Steam clone, but will change the profile slightly.

You, sir, have your priorities in order.

I agree with your choices. I had Blue Moon last week and it is not as good as Hoegaarden. The problem is that Hoegaarden was purchased by the European version of BMC (Bud, Miller, Coors). As a result, the quality of Hoegaarden has dropped slightly. It is still a good brew, just not as good as it used to be. Unibroue Blance de Chambly is very good and I would go with that or the Hoegaarden. I just suggest one leaves the fruit out of the beer. One of my pet peeves. I refuse to put anything in my beer after it has conditioned. If you want orange flavor in your beer, it should have been brewed with it in the first place.

Sep 10 @New England L Sep 17 @Miami L Sep 24 N.Y. Jets L Oct 1 Minnesota W Oct 8 @Chicago L Oct 15 @Detroit W Oct 22 New England L Nov 5 Green Bay W Nov 12 @Indianapolis L Nov 19 @Houston L Nov 26 Jacksonville L Dec 3 San Diego W Dec 10 @N.Y. Jets L Dec 17 Miami W Dec 24 Tennessee W Dec 31 @Baltimore W 7-9

It's Zach's birthday today. Did you send him a card?

Gee...I wonder if they are going to get a reaction because there is a !@#$ing camera crew following these people around? People see cameras and people react.

Thanks again everyone!!

Whoa...whoa...Are you going all "corporate" on us here? Are you letting "the man" dictate your actions? For shame...for shame...

Why don't we just sell the naming rights to the stadium? It would be a quick way to raise come cash. I am suprised that nobody thought of this sooner and posted it on the board.

It does not take much to rack up $50K in hospital costs. My father-in-law was in the hospital recently and racked up some pretty good charges in a short amount of time. As you mentioned previously, there needs to be protection for companies who offer insurance but the employees refuse it. BTW, people are still waiting for your AI review. Stop talking about frivilous things like healthcare and get to it!!

I didn't even think about that. With the sizable penalties that companies will face if their employees use "free" care, then it makes sense to get rid of people who opt out of paying for insurance.

We will have to see on that one, because the summary you provided specifically states that it will be less (and states it twice that it will be less). The summary specifically states that it is cheaper to pay the fines than it is to by the insurance. If you are an employer, there is no question that you would track it as well, to prevent your company from getting a suprise (possibly substantial) financial hit. It just makes good business sense. Sucks for the employee, though. I would need confirmation on that. Otherwise, it is a MAJOR drawback for small companies and you will see them running to adjacent states to open shop. I figured that it would fall on the providers, but I would want to know the benchmarks and how things are determined. Say, for example, that it is a quota. You need to show that you are providing services equally to all races. On the surface, that is a good idea. The problem comes in when you try to impliment that policy. Do you need to start adding unnecessary tests for certain ethnicities in order to pad your numbers, because your demographics are not equal among ethnicities? For example, you are located in a predominantly Latino neighborhood. Your numbers are obviously going to be skewed to Latinos. If an African-American requires your services, do you need to add tests to make up for the fact that not as many African-Americans are using your services, just so it looks like you are providing equal services to Latinos and African-Americans? On a completely separate note, I noticed that Kennedy's name is listed as helping, but Kerry's name is suprisingly absent? Not good for someone who wants to run for President again.

OK, I did a quick scan and my concerns have been reinforced, namely with the people who can afford insurance but decide to go without insurance. From the link you provided: Later in the link: What this is telling me is that it is cheaper to ignore the system and just pay the penalties than it is to get insurance. Other concerns: Now, companies need to stick their noses into your personal lives? If not, they will be penalized? OK, this can get scary. Without a better definition of how they are determining these "benchmarks" and how they are determining the disparities, it sounds like a quota. I need more information, but right now, I have a queasy feeling about this section.

Several things worry me about this plan: 1) You are mandated to buy insurance. Who determines how much coverage you need to meet this quota? 2) Government subsidies to insurance companies? 3) If you "can afford" insurance, but choose not to get it, you are fined. The problem is that the fines (even for repeat offenders) are still less than what it would cost to get the insurance. Where is the incentive to get the insurance? You save money by NOT getting the insurace and just paying the fines. If you need medical care, the government is still picking up the tab. 4) What happens if the cheap insurance that you buy (you know that cheap plans which only provide the minimum coverage will pop up like crazy) does not cover your medical needs? Who picks up the tab, the people who are buying more "sensible" coverage or the taxpayers? That's all I have after one reading of the article. I imagine I will have more as I read it again.

It's a Communism board. Please keep it straight.

Thanks, everyone!!