Neo

I mentioned months ago that this got me removed from Tea Party picnic lists ... I see universal health care as a societally desireable super benefit. I won't/can't call it a right. That's a quirk of mine and I apply it to many governmental "goods" that aren't rights in my understanding of the word. I don't have a right to food, let alone health care. But, before I let semantics get the better of me, let me say I agree with you about many barriers. Be thoughtful about capping costs, though. As attractive as this would be for all of us (I insure and otherwise pay for the health care for six people), there would be repurcussions. Your capped cost is her capped revenue. Her capped revenue is all of our capped service and innovation. I am not a health care professional, but I have a significant exposure to the industry's economics. Health care costs are high because we demand excellence in physicians (salaries), technology (machinery and equipment), and choice (procedures). Important contributing factors include litigation defense (belt and suspenders staffing and diagnosis) and a cultural aversion to rationing (the disproportionate share of health care cost when life expectancies are short or positive outcomes unlikely). We laughed at Palin's death panels and the GOP's rationing accusation. I assure you both are here, either in plan or practice. I would welcome comments from professionals. Correct my understanding where it's wrong. I am boldly going forth, here, on a topic where I'm no expert. Because I can't tackle technology, and because salaries take care of themselves (dollar = time + talent in the context of demand), I spend my time in the rationing and litigation boxes. These are policy issues. MyViewCare: 1) A government super-benefit for all despite the existence of no right; 2) paid for today by employees through employer plans and by taxing the general population where employer plans don't exist; 3). paid for tomorrow by taxing the general population as employer plans go away 4). continued excellence in physicians and technology 5). regrettably, a decrease in choice with rationing and outcome probabilities included in conversations around choice; 6). All administered by private for-profit insurance companies and health plan administrators. The government sucks, just sucks, at this kind of thing. It is my understanding that this keeps MyViewCare distinctly different from single payer plans. Reading guide: Employers do not pay for today's employer sponsored plans. You do. It's the cost of employing you, just like salaries, parking spaces, and pens. History: Point 5 is the very obvious policy conversation we failed to have during the ACA debate. It was the elephant in the room no one had the moral courage to mention. It will forever be the ACA's great ethical stain and economic fallacy. Acknowledge rationing, and you can realistically discuss adding 30,000,000 people to the same party. Saying you can bend the barbecued chicken cost curve down and feed everyone is a fib or cognitive disorder. I'm in ... I want all of my brothers and sisters to have a doctor. Next week's conversation - immigration, compassion, health care, rationing, and how many you can invite to the barbecue.

Grateful for the incorporation of policemen and firefighters. Especially grateful for what could be our board's highest moral authority voice (IMHO) calling war hateful.

I'm old, you're young. I'm laughing. I had your reaction to politicians in, oh, 1980 - 1984 ish. The bad news: I don't see it changing. We reward the behavior. The good news: A personal philosophy formed inside me and today I listen for its voice, particular statistics and claims notwithstanding. I then vote on character among those speaking in the voice I understand. You can hate politics and care deeply about government. Same with brotwurst and other sausage. Well, that's me .... the world looks forward to you.

"Yes" all around (although I'll let the criminal justice experts speak to the DA and his/her role; I get your point).

Saying what goes without saying ... probably on behalf of many of us ... I love and respect cops. What a brutal and often thankless job. It's truly public service. I am wary of the state. Cops are human beings, sons, daughters, moms and dads. Last night, I had an opportunity to tell two cops at the Lightning game that I was grateful for their service "in this crazy world". It made my night at least as much as it made theirs. With tens of thousand of cops, you'll get bad eggs and/or bad decisions every single day. Same with school teachers, pilots and CPAs. Systematic and authoritarian centralized power is the danger I'm vigilant against. Again, that video is obscene. I want to know the man. My mind's eye sees him kissing his wife and patting two kids on the head as he left for work that evening. What went wrong?

Awesome ...

Obscene video. Our Founding Fathers had similar experiences. They revolted, formed a government, and wrote an amendment or second, er two, with this in mind. Madison viewing this video ... "Well, that's what states do, innit? Isn't that why we're here?". Of course, they experienced it more frequently. Wait a minute. Oooops. I've seen more than a few posts here, lately, about the state, police, tactics, and rights ... What was I saying about frequently? Are we close to anything? No. My hat's a fedora, not tinfoil. Slopes and continuums? You decide. I feel the prudent citizen is vigilant before he or she's close to anything. For your consideration, fun and free time ... reconcile posts willing to grant more power and authority to the state with posts chronicling the state's abuses of power and its danger to the citizenry. I'll see their "well, we only wanna empower the state where it's good, but we wanna UN-empower it where it's bad" and raise them my "good luck with that". "The State can be useful to the only things that matter, Human Beings. Human Beings should be wary of the State." Quotes from Mr. and Mrs. Human History, dated every single day

You make ME remember ... Politicians and citizens use judgment and make decisions. They don't always prove right. See the politics thread. What has warmed my heart is Canada's unflinching stand with its ally, the US. This is especially gratifying knowing Canadian citizens and politicians are exercising their judgment, as well. Call me corny ... but any Don Cherry interaction with the military makes me tear up. I can hear the "Wow, Neo isn't old school, he's a dinosaur" groans. Warms my heart ... To the Canadian military, their friends, and their families ... we remember, too. I'm grateful.

Thank you to your dad and your family. You've seen it all, too. Hoo Rah ....

Grateful ... and true.

I would love to hear NHL goaltender views on smaller pads. I'm particularly interested in who this would favor and who it would disadvantage. Would GMTM still have a preference for larger goaltenders if smaller pads put a premium on quickness? Would "positionally sound" be an attribute that remains necessary, but becomes no longer sufficient? I see organizational depth charts re-arranging.

I attended last night. What a joy to see this team "live" for the first time. Your post captured two of my biggest take aways. Eichel creates space. His feet are fast and his vision is slow. We all knew the skill. It's a joy to watch the poise. Ocho looking spectacular feels different. My mind says "he's struggling and flailing" instead of "what acrobatic genius". He held a puck while Buffalo was on a power play. The shot had come from a distance and Tampa had a lone fore checker, covered, coming in from RW. My mind said "noooo" before changing to "good idea". PS ... I am thinking of telling the NHL that Stamkos sets up in the circle for one timers on the power play just, you know, so the league can stop him. I watched Vinny do it, from the right side and lower, for years.

Indulge me, please ... I want to thank the service men and women in SabreSpace who've sacrificed and served our country. I'm grateful with all my being. Additionally, please thank your family on my behalf. When mom or dad serves, the entire family serves. I've seen the sacrifice, myself. My son serves in the United States Navy and is often "underway" while his wife and children forge on against life's daily challenges back home. I am so proud ... Thank you, SabreSpace Veterans. If you're so inclined, it would be thrilling to me to know who are.

I'm almost finished ...

OK, I'm asking you and XB to give me the basics before studying up, which could take days. If I'm PRO - Net Neutrality, I want regulation because the regulation will keep it more accessible to all? Absent that regulation, well capitalized firms will have an advantage when apportioning speed and access? Do I have that correct? If that's correct, I have my starting point. Words give connotations. I associate "neutrality" with little regulation. I get the distinction, but may have started on the wrong foot. In any event, the free and easy access I championed in my first post will carry the day for me. I think the question for me will be reconciling regulation. Fortunately, my distaste notwithstanding, I readily admit desireable ends to some regulation. I'm not quite as far along the continuum as some (most?), but I do consent to being governed. Icrackmeup. Life's funny ... Ten minutes after reading XB, I heard a Net Neutrality conversation on NPR. Interesting stuff. It mentioned not only speed and capacity, but the control of content and censorship. Have to run along ... my knee's jerking!

I am representing, tonight (not bailing, like last time). PM me if you're going and want a beer.

I'm glad you brought this up! I have some learning and thinking to do, so I'll not post yet. Prelude: I believe the web as a free, unregulated, open medium, without differentiating fees and regulations, is awesome (whatever that means). Bill, in his garage, with standing equal to that of AT&T, appeals to me. I think this is where you are. Of course, I'll have to reconcile my conclusions with toll roads, but whatever.

Great idea, Mr. Big. I've always enjoyed international games on television and web based video of the crowd. MODO's had me googling for a couple of days. Olofsson is now a person. It was a name. Impression: The sweet wrist shot MODO described is, indeed, hard and accurate. Is the release quick? I'm torn. I'll let the learned inform me. Impression: Cultural differences + same event = different events. I also re-visited the Forsburg career. Beast. His style and mythic good looks bring me to Thor. Thor's Norse. Do Swedes consider themselves Norse? It's a broad word.

You should tell her that. You'd have saved her three months effort and the trouble of having to re-invent herself once again after she secures the nomination. They all do it. I just can't think of a candidate, off hand, that does it as much as she. I have no idea who the real HRC is. I think that's one of her challenges. Crazy bad. It would have been interesting to ask the follow up ... "Who believes they have a duty to vote"? Ted Cruz ... Marco Rubio ... Not sure if WildCard was funnin', or not, but I believe the Carson/Trump supporters aren't Jeb Bush fans. I used the word "inevitable" in a post last night. I've been thoughtful, since. Trump and Carson fading is not inevitable.

Not sure about anyone's understanding but my own, but I believe her team calls her HRC. I use the initials respectfully. I've never seen BHO.

I hope my views on the government's role in social issues, generally, and on Senator Cruz, specifically, are well known. That said, as the Republican primaries start to shake out, Cruz will be a formidable candidate with a chance of winning the nomination every bit as good as anyone else's. I think it's inevitable that Trump and Carson fade as other candidates leave and their support coalesces among the remaining traditional candidates. Cruz is well positioned in this scenario. I'll go further. He'll be formidable in the general election and will win it all IF he gets his party's nomination and IF the DOJ/FBI is not kind to HRC. Cruz v Clinton is the election I least want to see. This is long limb Monday typing.

Sorta funny, I think. About halfway down the page there's a video of Eichel scoring against Tamba Bay. The caption under the video reads "Hilarious Announcer". It is, of course, our RJ. (PS - great blog if you're a Hockey/Vancouver fan ...) http://blogs.theprovince.com/2015/11/06/canucks-hat-trick-killer-road-trips-for-elite-athletes-facing-jack-musing-about-cody-vs-zack/

I had just finished briefing him ...

I'm going to agree with you. I'm also going to hold communities accountable for riot. I'm not making a counter point, but instead am addressing a two wrong issue. Edit in light of XBs comment, below. I, too, don't have an ex-military problem.

I'll agree, Carson is a mistake we can vet and avoid. We missed an earlier opportunity ... Second thought ... If one gives serious thought to the right's complaint about media bias, and doesn't simply snark it off as whining, the different treatment of the memoirs could be exhibit xx174. The evil Fox, for the record, called Carson out.