krill

Absolutely true, along with Tuesdays being solyant green day for folks over the age of 56 on food stamps.

At least we got a 20 hour filibuster that wasn't really a filibusterer, filled with readings of Green Eggs and Ham, and comparing health care reform to appeasement of Nazi Germany out of this. If anyone wasn't quite sure that congress is dysfunctional circus that's less popular that herpes, Al Qaeda, or death by drawn and quartering.

Got to hand it to Kaliff Farms in York, raking in double what any weeny Iowa corn farmers managed.

You word that as though the health care exchanges are going to offer nothing but crappy insurance, while employers offer nothing but good insurance. At a very base level, and I've probably already made a half dozen post about this, you have to wonder why employers are in the business of offering health insurance in the first place. In some cases, particularly in heavily unionized workplaces (like the auto industry) employers had / have come to manage all their employers health care and it's been a huge liability. On the other end of the spectrum, why should a small business owner have to spend any amount of time worrying about their employee's health care instead of operating and growing their business? This "benefit" has always cost the taxpayers a huge amount of money in tax subsidies, distorted delivery of health care, and in many cases, created a feudal-like system where people are afraid to lose or change jobs because of health care being tied to employment. Republican congressmen and governors have done absolutely nothing but stonewall efforts to implement the law. You're actually surprised? This is the base play in the playbook: loudly shout that government doesn't work, do everything possible to make sure it doesn't work, then present the examples of it not working as evidence that it doesn't work. It's hard to govern effectively and fix problems. It's not hard at all to be a drunk a-hole in the crowd yelling, which if you asked me, is about all the Republican party is good for these days. Of course it's unpopular when all Republicans have done is obfuscate and scare people. As one of the post above showed, they won't even allow funding for efforts to explain how to the health care law affects individuals and what options they have. It's really great that instead of trying to be contributors, or even offer alternative legislative fixes, Republicans have chose to gorge themselves on campaign contributions that are largely coming from political slush funds.

I wonder how many of the doom and gloomers that will be seeing changes to their health insurance have actually read up on the information their insurer has probably sent them multiple times. BCBS of Nebraska sent me the big packet a few weeks ago explaining changes and yes, my coverage will be slightly more expensive and I won't qualify for a federal subsidy, but the coverage is much better all around with co-pays for routine care and lower overall out-of-pocket expenses should I need major medical care. Nothing else changes. What truly is shameful is that the the health care industry has spent tens of billions of dollars and uncountable numbers of hours preparing for regulatory compliance, while Republican governors in many states have done everything possible to stonewall functional health care exchanges. Meanwhile Republican congressman have acted like they can put the brakes on a train that stopped years ago by threatening the entire nation with economic catastrophe. Why? So a few lazy, stupid politicians can get campaign donations from groups that are effectively money laundering under the facade of the tea party. They all know there's no going back, they don't have an alternative plan, they never offered one, and it's their plan plan from two decades ago to begin with. When is enough, enough?

All the gerrymandering and tea party bucks in the world won't be enough to save congressional Republicans from this fiasco. I think most people, even most that are skeptical of Obamacare, are totally sick of the seasonal threats of a government shutdown and economic catastrophe if we default on our debt obligations.

I'd like to think that for $2.85 million dollars a year, someone could be a little more professional and find ways to cope with stress besides blowing up and attacking people. It is disappointing when his pointless tirades overshadow many of the good things that he's done, and the players too,

virginia tech 2009 comes to mind... 2009 VT, your right about that TT, total meltdown shocker ISU, worst Husker game I've ever been too...ever UT @ CCG, sideline pissing, yelling, etc., total embarrassment to the program 2010 UT, everyone gets their revenge t-shirts out, we get embarrassed by a very mediocre team at home A&M, more sideline pissing and yelling, possibly the most embarrassing game for the program ever ISU, we needed a miracle to beat the fearsome Cyclones OU @ CCG, we basically threw it away, although the OC burned his last bridge here WU @ bowl, hey, we don't need to play, what a bad bowl 2011 @ Wisconsin, totally embarrassed OSU, the miracle of miracles NW, good game, but we threw it away @ Michigan, totally embarrassed, another classic turnover fiesta meltdown SC @ bowl, another meltdown 2012 The absolute beatdowns at the hands of OSU and Wisconsin should still be fresh in our memories. I could probably take these a little easier if Bo had some PR skills and less of a temper. There's no indication he's a bad person and he does a lot of good things off the field, but he also seems to have the personality of someone who is hopelessly stubborn and surrounds himself with yes men.

I don't pretend to know the nitty-gritty of football coaching philosophy, but any casual observer can see we are going in the wrong direction, and the blowout meltdowns are not tempering at all. It's like there's no middle ground in the Pelini era when it comes to losing where we are barely beat in an otherwise good game (the kinds of loses most people can take without punching things)...we either have a total meltdown, win very ugly, or miracle our way back into the game in the big games.

No, it's not, an active war zone is not a peacekeeping operation. Who would the Syrian government even sign a cease-fire or peace agreement with? There are dozens of factions in tangled web of ethnic tensions and the usual jihad types that have no plans beyond mayhem. The African rent-an-armies that the UN has increasingly relied on for peacekeeping have been counterproductive in even low-intensity operations...how is that going to help at all in this mess? Believe what you want about the efficacy of the UN when we don't get our way, but it goes both ways. Just as Russia has had a long history of weapon sales to Syria and shielding them from the weak finger of the US, we've done the same for Israel every time they need some new toys, or decide to bulldoze and evict some Palestinians.

Haha, wow...I'd put their new hire maybe one rung higher than Cosgrove. When our fans bitch and moan about our coordinators just remember this, the good ones leave at the drop of a hat unless they are personally connected to the HC, and the bad ones get passed around like two dollar hookers. Coaches that fire their coordinators two games into the season don't have many names to call...just lol @ this train wreck.

I know it's petty and stupid, but it's so much fun to read a shaggybevo meltdown. That program has more money and access to talent than god, and yet they are probably looking at bowl eligibility as a victory this season.

I seem to recall as a younger man that amigos was like, some sort of black magic that soaked up all the alcohol and left your feeling ok and about 3 pounds heavier in the morning. Now I just feel sick and unable to sleep with massive heartburn...lol.

Nothing like a little pointless bombing in some mideast ****hole to distract us from the real issues.

Yeah, because an area with new, fun places to hang out, eat, and drink is totally lame. From the information I have seen, it's going to be a mix of local establishments and chains. I walked around the area in July, and I thought it looked really cool. If it's half as successful as the KC Power & Light district, it will be a huge success for Lincoln. I congratulate Lincoln for being so forward thinking and making this happen. I didn't mean to give a tone of overly complaining or suggest that it should not have been further developed. It will be good for Lincoln, and it's already been good seeing dollars spent on upgrading the downtown infrastructure that has always been awful. It was just a reflection on seeing the area transformed from a mostly run down dump (20 years ago) to an full developed urban entertainment area that will not be a whole lot different than what many cities have. Something gained, something lost. I still don't see the point of an outside company trying to enforce a dress code. I can hardly imagine a dude walking into a bar on a blazing hot summer day being thrown out to the tune of "We don't serve your kind here!".

Seems pretty stupid. I've been going to the haymarket practically all my life and never noticed a problem with the dress of people or hooligans. Yesterday I actually took a little spin through the "west" haymarket to see what it looked like now that it's almost finished. It use to feel like a genuinely quaint area without the artificial planned feel that many urban hot spots have. I think that's all over now, and things like this just add insult to injury as all the chains and franchises prepare to roll in.

Presenting any of the problems with the British or Canadian healthcare system only further obfuscates what few people seem to understand. Their systems are completely ran by the government, and judging by how poorly we've ran the VA system over the years, it would indeed by horrifying to think how our government would run that type of system. But, that's not what anyone outside maybe some extreme left-wing bloggers want to see happen. Maybe read up on other types of systems that more closely resemble what we have with mixed-market providers and various mechanisms for ensuring universal insurance coverage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Germany http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_the_Netherlands

Why would you be at all concerned when these three groups played a major role in crafting the bill? If they wanted it stopped, any one of these groups has the clout to make changes. It's not like the bill did anything radical like say, increasing the number of primary care residency slots, aggressively pursing reimbursement rates to decrease unnecessary and expensive procedures, granting government more power to negotiate prices for drugs they are paying for, or introducing a public health care option to compete with the private insurers. None of that happened, and none of major players (AMA, providers, insurers, pharma) are throwing lobbying dollars at stopping implementation.

I really see no difference between circa 1791 firearms and modern firearms. A poor argument I admit. I am curious why many staunch defenders of the second amendment readily accept NFA restrictions on automatic weapons, short barreled rifles and shotguns, destructive devices, and suppressors. This is hardly an absolute interpretation of the amendment as an individual right when you've readily conceded broad categories for reasonable regulation. Thus, why are other reasonable regulations such as magazine capacities suddenly seen as a massive overreach?

I hate to be so cynical about it, but the "smoking KFC fatasses" eating at KFC 17 times a week probably have a net positive effect on health care spending because their lifespans are going to be significantly shorter.

What's the difference between the government offering insurance subsidies for plans purchased through a highly regulated exchange, or the government offering direct subsidies to employers with tax incentives to offer employees health insurance? It seems to me that pushing people to the exchange is a far better use of tax dollars with the advantages of economies of scale, larger risk pools, and more careful oversight of the cost and benefits.

It seems to have been demonstrated quite clearly that in most places, it is almost impossible to live period on the minimum wage without massive government subsidies or living in your parent's basement. I only wish we could be honest about what's going on here instead of pretending to be shocked at how many people are on food stamps and medicaid, even more so when it's discovered that the vast majority of those people work full time jobs.

In regard to the McDonald's sample budget, I have been wondering if the lack of a line item for food, $0 for heating, and $20 for health care was really a mistake. It's been shown in the past that Wal-Mart plans on their low wage workers using programs such as food stamps, medicare, and home heating assistance. In addition, it is highly unlikely that a worker in this position is saving or investing any money in an IRA or voluntary 401k, which is virtual assurance of needing even more assistance if they live beyond a working age. This is one of my primary problems with the temporary or stepping stone job arguments as well, because failure to invest money for retirement when you are young means losing out on all the tax advantages and necessitates greater contributions if you do move on to a higher earning job. No small surprise then young, middle-aged, and nearing retirement age people alike are all on the whole woefully unprepared to independently retire.

Why do people frequently try to glob together an entire nation of people like they all have the same ideas? It's like being surprised that a hedge fund manager in NYC, an unemployed college grad in California, and a retired farmer in small town Nebraska probably have very different worldviews. In Egypt there seems to be many unemployed college grads upset about the mismanagement of the economy, an urban elite that is highly suspicious of Islamist, and a great many people that can only be described as an angry mob. Then there's a highly entrenched government bureaucracy resistant to reforms and change, and a well equipped, well trained army that will look after their own interest. It's very difficult to imagine how a fledgling democracy can hope to unite all these various factions for a period of time long enough to effect positive changes in security and the economy. Having said that, what are we supposed to do? We say we support democracy as long as they vote the right way? The Muslim Brotherhood seemed to win last year because they already had the best base for campaigning, where other candidates had no base and no idea how to run a political campaign. If new elections are held it will probably be a more even playing field.

Your argument is a fairly simple mistake in logic. That is, the lack of a non-religious ancient civilization with laws does not prove that the presence of religion leads to laws. First of all, pagan religions in ancient Mesopotamian, Greek, and Italian civilizations had a much different role in society than the Judeo-Christian religion. Second, even advanced philosophers such as Aristotle had a rudimentary scientific understanding of the world (by our standards of knowledge), so there was no hope of the masses embracing reason over religious and mystic explanations for the daily occurrences of life. A far better explanation is that civilization itself produces laws and understanding of morality, not the presence of region. Virtually of that in western civilization is derived from the Greeks. Christian teachings didn't materialize out of thin air either. Early church figures, such as St. Augustine, were greatly impacted by Neoplatonism as the church cannon and such took shape.