HeyYou

I would point out, that we live in the United States. That school was in the United States. So, why do we celebrate another countrys holiday in any event? Does Mexico celebrate on the fourth of july?

It isn't ideological reasons. At least, not "only" those. In Bettes case, her old plan worked for her. It provided the coverage she wanted/needed. Now we have the ACA, and in order to make things "fair", everyone has to purchase blanket coverage, even if it is something that they will never, ever, use. Like males paying for materity insurance...... and of course, that costs more. The ACA was a bandaid fix for the wrong problem. We don't need legislation requiring us to purchase a product from a private company, we need JOBS! The place where most folks used to get their insurance.

We, as a nation, have become so politically correct, that it is now a crime to offend anyone....... So, please don't say anything at all, only wear neutral colors, have a subdued hairstyle, and for gods sake, no jewelry, tatoos, or makeup. Maybe we should all just stay home, and not go out, so that we don't take a chance of offending someone? In case you missed it..... I think the way our country is going is NOT the correct direction. We were founded by people that wanted to live their own lives, the way they saw fit, and they really didn't care what others though about it. We felt so strongly about it, we went to war over it. The founding fathers should be rolling over in their graves if they can see what the country they started has come to.

I agree, there shouldn't be any legislation promoting one sex, over the other, under any circumstance. If I ran a construction business, who do you think I would be more likely to hire though? A woman? Or a man? They may both have the exact same training/experience, but, will the woman be able to keep up with the man? Sure, there are some that will be able to not only keep up, but, surpass him. But, are they the rule? No, they are not, they are the exception. (and therefore, considered, in this case, "exceptional".)

There are some things that men ARE better at. They have the physique to deal with some jobs, that most women, do not. Much as some would like us to believe, there ARE differences between the sexes. (and what's really funny is, women are banned from combat flight operations, but, they actually make better combat pilots. :) Just ask the Russians.)

Religious intolerance is unacceptable, but, the religious being intolerant of my views is ok. Check. Got it. Trying to shove your religious views down my throat by passing legislation is intolerable as well. Abortion was only one example. I'll leave it at that.

They are trying to make it difficult/expensive to get an abortion. Its an end-run short of an outright ban.

Republican policies are indeed, at least, partialy, based on their religious views. Where do you think the resistance against birth control, and abortion comes from? (hint: catholic church)

Not disparaging anything there colour. That's what the smilies were all about.

:D Devils advocate time. Ok, so, you negotiated your own salary. So, that makes it YOUR fault you settled for less that what a man would be paid. :) A lot of the jobs I have interviewed for, didn't negotiate at all, they simply stated what they were willing to pay, and I could take it, or leave it. Be glad you had the option to negotiate. A lot of the criteria that 'qualifications' are based on are so subjective, as to be unquatifiable. Implementing this type of legislation would help one class of people, and one class only. Lawyers.

Because it isn't about just qualifications. Two people can have exactly the same stuff on their resumes, but, one of them can still be 'better' at what they do. Be it because of personality, upbringing, or a whole host of other issues. Arbitrarily legislating that two people doing the same job, MUST be paid the same, regardless of performance, qualifications, etc, is a non-starter. Besides, any such legislation would have to be so ambiguously written, that it would be unenforceable in any event. Also, if you think this is a recent issue, think again. Pay inequality, even among folks of the SAME gender, has been going on forever. Why do you think most large corporations don't want you discussing your salary with your co-workers? A few places I have worked, they would flat out fire you for even bringing up the topic. Reason being..... the pay scales, even in the same job description, were so disparate, as to defy belief. One of the major reasons I left one of my positions was because I was the manager, yet, much to my surprise, a couple folks that worked FOR me, made more than I did, (by a good margin.) and they were fresh off the street.

True, but, we are (some of us, at any rate.) aware of such attempts at manipulation. Hell, even my grandkids try and manipulate me. :D

To me, we would be switching one insurance scheme for another insurance scheme. The problem is neither is that great. Back when Obamacare was being voted on, I disliked it because, for me, it addressed the wrong part of the problem. This guy's bill was $89,000, that's the problem. Having insurance, or even a government insurance isn't reducing that number. Until we get around to tackling that issue, won't matter if we have private or single-payer, the price of healthcare will be an issue. That's very true. However, with a single-payer system, (socialised medicine for all you republicans out there. :) ) The government would actually dictate what they were going to pay for goods/services. Another reason many industries don't like the idea. That would seriously cut into profits for the drug companies. They claim that it would compromise research..... thing is, a fair bit of said research is also subsidized by tax dollars..... so, while on the surface, it sounds reasonable, in reality, its a straw argument.

Yeah, "free" healthcare is paid for by higher taxes. Everybody pays, everybody gets health care. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Only trouble is, it would eliminate the health insurance industry. Lots of jobs, billions of dollars in CEO's pockets, etc. It isn't so much the "socialist" aspects of it that some folks don't like, it's the campaign contributors that happen to run insurance companies that don't like it, so, whatever negative press they can come up with, only helps their cause.

You are missing what I am saying completely. On purpose? Health care is NOT just drugs. For just about any other service, yeah, opening up another facility would be a viable answer. And yes, it would create more jobs. The problem you run into there though, is that practioners themselves are what is declining. Fewer folks are electing to go into the medical field, spend the time, and money, necessary to become even general practitioners. Look it up. It has been a trend for some time now, brought about mostly by the rapidly rising cost of malpractice insurance, and the litigation happy folks that are just LOOKING for a reason to sue. Not to mention all the lawyers advertising their services for just such an opportunity.

Erm, prices only go down when supply is greater than demand. When demand is greater than supply, prices go up. That is an economic fact, and the democrats cannot repeal it. The ACA is going to increase demand, but, does nothing about supply.

I didn't say this is the fault of the ACA, I said the ACA is only going to make it worse. How? You ask? Well, lets think about this a bit. We are adding millions more people to the ranks of the insured. (supposedly) All these people are now going to want to make use of the their shiny new insurance. The population of health care practitioners is remaining constant, or declining...... So, this implies that demand for their services is only going to rise. What happens in a capitalist society when demand for a product/service goes up, yet supply remains constant, or even declines? That's right. Prices go up. It is unavoidable. It IS going to happen. The ACA did absolutely nothing to address this particular point. Now, let's follow that a bit further up the food chain..... as healthcare costs increase, guess what the price of insurance is going to do? Yep, exactly, it ALSO is going to go UP. I will agree that we needed to do something about health care in america, but, as it stands, the ACA was exactly the WRONG thing to do.

Gotta be a mod conflict. Post your load list.

Post your load list.

Have a look at SSME. Combined with ENBoost, this is a serious game-changer for crash-prone folks.

I have seen far too many accidents where all the folks that were wearing seatbelts, walked away with bruises. Those that were not wearing theirs, were carried off in a bag. (same accidents.) Some of the accidents weren't that major either. The vehicles were repaired, for not much cost. (of course, they were then sold, as the owners didn't care for the memories that went with them.) Today, we have traction control, anti-lock brakes, air bags, lane-drift warning systems, and a host of other electronic doo-dads that reduce the skill required by the driver to stay where they want to be. Trouble is, none of those things will actually help you if you go beyond their design parameters.... That usually gets you dead.

Hospitals charge seriously inflated prices for any variety of care. Drug prices are inflated by a factor of ten, or more. (much more, in this case.) Supposedly, they do this to cover the losses on folks that don't pay..... Apparently then, MOST folks don't pay..... at least, that is what the hosipitals seem to want us to believe. I agree. It's stupid. Obamacare was supposed to address this issue, but, in typical government fashion, they pass legislation that is supposed to 'fix' something, but only make things worse.

Inattention. Caused by overindulging in alcohol, or those consarned phones. :) (and a selection of other distractions as well.) When I didn't care about points on my license, I would speed all the time. (and I mean SPEED) I think my best ticket was 108 in a 55. (I didn't notice the AIRPLANES......) The only accidents I have ever been in, weren't my fault. Back when I rode motorcycles a lot, I learned there are two things that can kill you. Your stupidity, which you can do something about, and someone elses stupidity, which you have to watch out for. That applies equally to cars.

If time travel were possible in the future wouldn't evidence exist of it now and in the past? Only if the travelers weren't careful. But, that could be a topic in and of itself. (and in fact, it has been.......)

Must be different where you live Lisnpuppy. Around here, your driving record is reviewed every three to six months by the insurance companies. (and then they raise your rates anyway.....) Also, most of the banks REQUIRE you to carry full coverage insurance on any vehicle you have that is security on the loan. Of course, Michigan has some of the most expensive insurance in the nation..... thank you Detroit......