YellowLinesandArmadillos

At the rate private insurance is increasing, maybe and if that is the case then you have nothing to worry about. The public option will fail or not be used and so what.

Its capped and that already is creating problems. There are cases of swine flu aftermaths that are already bumping up against said caps. For most it works unless you have longterm illness issues or just get old and need lots of medical care to keep you alive. Baby boomers aren't going to go for it. Need some Catastrophic care coverage in the plan, if not the taxpayers will end up paying for it anyway through medicare and you will be on welfare shortly.

Take your blinders off they do all the time and there are many examples of public private partnerships. I am talking about keep costs down, but you keep spouting the Laissez Faire crap. It ends up being trickle down econ all over again. It doesn't work.

No, I am not that dogmatic, and agree on the government stuff to an extent because it allows too many busy bodies to stick their nose into my life. That being said big Corporations do the same thing and unless both are reigned in at the same time what is the use. On the other hand, since they tend to compete with each other, I would rather pit them both against each other and have some competition if I we can't severely limit both. In reality I see no difference between the two.

The GOP had eight years, 6 years of Congressional control to get something done and all we ended up with was a Bill that gave $400 Billion to drug companies and cut off medicare's and medicaid's right to negotiate contracts. He I agree with you on limited Tort reform, but unless there is control over premiums that won't work either. Insurance cos have everyone by the cahoonas and do really think if Tort reform happens they will lower premiums. Doubt it, large settlements don't make up that much of the overall premium, still cutting out frivolous lawsuits imo is a good thing. Intrastate competition and Federal regulation, cutting out states would be a good thing. Agreed it should be added in, but it still doesn't eliminate the idea that the public option is a good alternative. Those are incremental reforms and while I think they should be done and part of that is being considered in the Senate Bill wasting time and doing nothing is not the answer. Let it happen, if it sucks, then vote the bums out repeal it and start over. Short of outlawing insurance cos altogether, which I don't think is a bad idea, politically untenable, the attacks on the current bill are disingenuous. So go on sucking the insurance co koolaide

The current system is going to cost me more, so how the @#$@#$ does that make your point???? Go back to being indoctrinated by you insurance cos and having the word "Sucker" stamped on your head... Puleeease!

Stop the whining and the holier than thou attitude. The Republicans did this all the time and didn't even let the Dems see the Managers amendment ahead of time. You Koolaid drinkers are such hypoocrits it is pathetic. Yes she is probably trying to get this through, but from a logistical standpoint, the final legislative writing occurs even up to the last minute when the proofing is done and questions come up. So you don't like the Bill, okay who in the insurance industry is paying your salary. I am tired of hearing illegitimate allegations against these bills without alternatives. Tell me how you are going to control health care costs short of saying those without buy high deductibles and open up MSAs. When you are cash poor that doesn't work and in a recession like this people are cash poor. Now that idea is debunked as usefull, talk to me. When are doctors and insurance execs going to tighten their belts like everyone else.... until I see that happen, I am all for a public option.

True it is not as popular, but the NFL has gone over the edge with its "corporature" making it fan unfriendly. Hockey is a great sport both to play lifelong and to watch in person. Football has too many TV timeouts to go to a game although it is better sometimes on TV, but even then it has taking too many commercial breaks so I can't even watch college let alone pros on TV.

Risk and actual always has some bite, bet next year's ticket sales are way off. The only problem is what the change is. Toronto here comes the Bills, it may happen anyway.

Generally speaking I agree, but a nice protest chant like we want our money back should make management as uncomfortable as possible. You have to find a way to make these guys feel some accountability and what better way than to put risk into their pocket book??? So, I think people should ask... no real expectations though, makes for some great images and sound bites too!

The Bills should reimburse season ticket holders at least half their ticket prices since they are getting less than half the product promised. I have given up on them and can barely stand to even check the scores each week. At least if Jauron were gone with someone with a track record of winning brought in I could live with growing pains, but not with this stubborn guy. Now injuries have caught up with the team so there is a built in excuse. But still in IMO not going for it against NO was the turning point of the season and sapped the lifeblood out of this team. Not saying making it or not would have been a major turning point, but just going for it at that point would have sent the correct message to the team win or lose.

?? You are still yapping?

What and go back to the way things were before... Gotta give me an alternative to both sides that aren't imbeciles yet are not bought and paid for. Till then I gotta pick and choose the lesser of the evils.

I ended up with a Volvo Station wagon with bad carburators and a Ford LTD, not bad, but the engine became cracked and a cylinder went bad. Still both were tanks, didn't have to worry about explosions.

LOL...

I agree with you in a sense, but Steve Douchey and the rest are such simpletons that they come across as gomer pyle esque in their presentations that they end up sounding whiny and well just stupid. At least Rush makes arguments more put together than I know you are but what am I. I can deal with that. The arguments about the full version of the Bill online was a technical issue of getting that much work done while certain points were still be clarified and written, I have been there done that, happens all the time with both sides and from a staff point of view, it is a cluster... really a no win situation. Though everyone knows what is in the bill. Tying it all together is and getting it in its proper format takes time. P.S. I don't believe there is really such a thing as independents in any large numbers, or at least if you really press, there are people who don't want to declare for either party, but really only support one or the other. The persuadable number is much smaller than the numbers suggested. Like handicap license plates, there are far more people that are not handicapped with them than those that are actually. Regarding the Bush media playbook, how is this any different than who Bush took questions from, singled out unfriendly reporters for sequestration... there may be some differences in style but the tactics were just as if not more pernicious than the Obama admin. Though I would agree, both WHs have taken controlling the media to a whole different level without the media having much of a coherent intelligent strategy to counter. Fox is trying, but they look like idiots doing it. The others are only beginning to wake up. P.S. CNN is useless. At least with MSNBC and Fox you can clean the poles of the debate. The problem with them is that you can't tell the nuances and gain any real info.

True, but he was dead in the water in trying to make a comeback of sorts... blew up in his face and Rove's tactics were brilliant. Wondering if the WH is trying something similar with Fox?

Ah, the good old Pinto!

Agreed and because of that he was an easy target of the Rove media control machine, that doesn't mean he wasn't set up and isn't a good example of WH attempting to control the media.

I am on the fence on this one. I would rather the DOJ do it works before this becomes a circus, but if DOJ takes too long, then maybe the circus should begin. Note that no one will be immune from accusations and it will be a Dog and Pony show with congresscritters trying to one up each other despite those same congresscritters being complicit in the the deal if there is an actual problem with the loans. P.S. Rep. Darrell Issa is totally a tool and is a bag man for Big Pharma, so even his hands are smeared with crap.

I am not buying all the pour me Faux Spews lament. This has been a brewing issue with Fox and the Dems and it has finally come to a head. It is not that they don't care, but they don't believe that they will get much of a fair shake with Fox and it is pointless to even bother. Actually they may get more attention for their perspective by shunning Fox and having a chance to point out how they think Fox distorts facts. However from Fox's standpoint it probably sells to highlight the shunning. By the way, I am not saying the WH doesn't spin its own version of facts, but since they are so diametrically opposed, I am not sure engaging Fox is worth their time, but maybe picking a fight is from both sides' perspective. Interesting strategy... goes into the old Clinton right wing conspiracy idea, though he chose to engage much more and it worked for him. I would get off your high horses though on both sides and think about how this plays out both short-term and long-term. I think Fox probably wins this argument short term. Long-term, I am betting that the WH feels that sooner or later Fox will overstep its bounds of decorum so that they can say, see I told you so... The controlling of the media however has been attempted by all Presidential aspirants in one form or another. Hell, this is a page right out of the Bush White House II regarding the Persian Gulf War II and the set up of Dan Rather on the Bush military record, puleease. Folks this is not new or really news other than a high ranking official actually stated it clearly how they tried to do it.... So fing what. They question is how successful were they and are they currently? Anita is a very smart person, and I am betting there is more to this then meets the eye. If she is back to consulting, which is what she does then she advised well and did her job and is just stating what everyone in Washington already knows... I know this makes for a good sound bite, but I don't really see how this is news???

Start Hamden... see what he can do.... and then maybe you have no controversy because it is obvious the others are limited as quarterbacks and who knows, maybe he comes through.... at this point it is worth the shot?

I was gonna mention Denis Shaw, still think I have his football card. We used to imitate his throws as kids. Do a seven step drop, lean way back and throw the ball as high as you could and hope Marlin Briscoe could run under it. LOL.

I think the game is declining... The rookie salary issue, the disconnect between salaries and people buying tickets... same is happening in the NBA. Too much advertising on TV. Ticket prices for games have gotten out of hand especially in large markets and some of the other things mentioned... the rules on hitting the quarterback, receiver, running backs out of bounds etc. I do think the talent is good and when the game isn't interrupted it is fun to watch but eh, hockey seems to be a more fluid sport, less interruptions and just as hard hitting. The TV broadcasts have gotten better. You get a better sense of the skill level with the close ups and wider angle lenses being used and more cameras at the games and less out and out fighting. Baseball has too long a season. Soccer has become intriguing too. Still football has only declined so much... though at times it seems to border on the UFC and WWE with its highlight broadcasts.

Let's Go SABRES!