GG

To torment TSW?

He didn't exactly say that it would be Trump's people who would be charged.

So we should ignore over one years' worth of prognostications that neocons wanted Hillary in the White House because she was their next champion of regime change? PS - Lookie here at who may now be supporting regime change.

Kinda blows a hole in the theory that all neocons are after is regime change in Syria, doesn't it?

Surprised you didn't point out that the article was carried by a pro-neocon publication. Wonder why?

So long, Bannon. Looks like Trump is listening to the more sane people in his inner circle.

I think that's why he's diversifying into sheep.

Obviously not. And if I had, I'd have the same comment on the stupid analogy.

Not really. In a real business, you wouldn't expect a goat to do a horse's job, or vice versa. So whoever came up with that quote is an unmitigated moron.

The Kane deal had a swap of two defensemen. Murray's thinking had to include a view that Bogosian was a better long term option than Myers. It's not even close. Would Winnipeg be willing to let Kane go for Stafford, Armia, Lemiuex & a 1st rounder? Everybody is talking about how Murray got fleeced for a first rounder in the Lehner trade. But the swap of Myers for Bogo has been a huge negative. Kasdorf was his prototypical goalie prospect who outright sucked. And while Kane is playing up to his billing, please don't tell me that Winnipeg would let him go for a song after he was booted from the locker room. After all, we're talking about a player who had zero trade value this summer - and his trade value in Winnipeg was slightly above that. I'd say that the only clear win for Murray has been the O'Reilly trade.

Don't forget the added favor for uncle Brian to take Legwand's salary off their books.

Murray's defensive evaluation should definitely be up for debate as in his term he added Gorges, Bogosian & Kulikov and got rid of Myers, Pysyk, & Zadorov.

Explains bigly.

I can't stand how Democrats think that government can fix everything, despite proven history of the opposite behavior.

Shh, don't tell him that. I kind of enjoy his delusion that he knows everything, including the private jokes that he wasn't part of.

Healthcare costs have been rising all over the world for a host of reasons, which you continue to conflate, and a move to a single payer will not stem the rise of those healthcare costs. PS - It's instructive to take a look at California's attempt to "deregulate" its energy industry a decade ago where demand was unregulated but supply was constrained.

It's abundantly clear in this thread who's the person that doesn't understand supply and demand. Just because you choose to slap a "government run" label on something, doesn't eliminate the forces of nature.

Meanwhile, last week I saw a Bloomberg reporter spill a cup of coffee at the WTC Transit Hub, which is you know where. Coincidence? I think not.

It's useless unless he drives a BMW

Maybe we can attribute Rice's requests to another plume of smoke.

And for every dollar you spend on saving in reimbursements you'll spend two on increased compliance costs. Medicare & Medicaid spend a much higher proportion of dollars than the proportion of the population it covers. That is understandable given the risk pool. But it's also the reason you're not going to see your phantom cost savings by obliterating the private insurance market, as you're suggesting.

Single payer will not bring down costs because the very basic assumption is as faulty as your logic. An truly educated person would recognize that. If you accomplish your nirvana of obliterating the private insurance industry, then you will need to create an entirely new administrative machine to handle the cost of providing HEALTH CARE and payments. That is 1 - not going to be cheap and 2 - will not be cheaper than the current system. Get out of your bubble and learn why the US HEALTH CARE costs are so high and then you will understand that single payer will not solve the problem.

There's a clear reason you've been branded an idiot by Tombot. You are the latest in the line who can't differentiate between health insurance and health care. So let me recap. Even though ACA fulfilled the vision of your compatriots by providing greater access to HEALTH CARE to a portion of population that did not have HEALTH INSURANCE, and they did not avail themselves to the benefits of the new law, you think that by expanding the provisions of that law to give everybody access to HEALTH CARE and in the process reduce payments to the providers of HEALTH CARE will result in better HEALTH CARE for the population? Try this for an experiment, what would you do if your boss came in and said, starting tomorrow you're taking a 30% pay cut, but I need you to work 10 hours more per week. Do your civic duty. You may accept the terms because there are few better options available. But don't tell me that you will be just as motivated to do your job. And that's precisely what we need to accomplish your social experiment, let's have the entire HEALTH CARE industry miserable and unhappy while you're lying in the hospital bed. As had been said countless times on this board, noob, the US HEALTH CARE industry's biggest issue is not HEALTH INSURANCE, but people's livestyles, regulation and how people consume HEALTH CARE. Tomorrow's comedy lesson will discuss how you will get the Democrats to convince the trial bar to drop all malpractice lawsuits.

Is this where you throw up the standard "2% Administrative Cost" trope? Please show me any enterprise where General & Administrative Expenses are only 2% of revenues? (Other than prison labor, I suppose)

Statistics show that when the poor do go to the ER, the situation is already acute. What makes you think that they will change their behavior? You do realize that after ACA passed, ER visits jumped, even though people had medical coverage to see a doctor? A how in the world will service get better when you will reduce the service options and pay less for the services? Do you think the doctors will start to provide better care at less pay for the common good of mankind?