Wrath of Dagon

Seems like you're exaggerating just a little bit.

I failed. Meh, I'm not paying $60 for a PC game. Even back when I was buying console DVD's I could usually find a sale for $10 off.

Should've picked Bolton.

Speaking of which : http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/6/my-husband-wouldve-died-obamacare/ True it's only one case, but private insurance tends to be much more permissive than government since private can be sued. Edit: She hasn't really proved her accusation against Obamacare either, since it's still private insurance unless you get the expanded Medicaid.

The average American has pretty decent insurance from his employer, which means he's no worse off than a millionaire in getting healthcare. Obviously that still leaves a lot of people in less than ideal conditions.

Who are these women anyway? A credible person comments on the healthcare bill: https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2017/05/04/if-the-senate-doesnt-fix-the-houses-obamacare-replacement-the-gop-will-pay-a-steep-price/#25daceb54a58

Can you at least save before you attempt the hack? I know if this was Ubisoft you wouldn't be able to.

A conservative Supreme Court isn't all a bed of roses. Been TV shopping lately and noticed this: http://www.michigan.gov/ag/0,4534,7-164-17337_20942-44650--,00.html All the authorized retailers have the same price, and the grey market retailers that have good prices all seem to be crooks from my experience and from reading their reviews. Edit: This was claimed here earlier: http://reason.com/blog/2017/05/05/rape-not-preexisting-condition-in-acha

That would explain why my kids took Spanish classes in HS.

Not in Texas at least. I doubt in most other states either.

Hah, I like this part. I probably wouldn't complain as much is the money was really getting to the medical professionals. Unfortunately I think it ends up in the hands of executives more often than not. I disagree. I think hospitals and every one working for them make a mint. Also doctors, especially specialists. Pharmaceutical companies, medical equipment manufacturers. Speaking of socialized medicine, I don't think any of those countries have the same high tech equipment that's common in US. During the London Olympics, GE was running commercials about how they had to donate neo-natal units to a British hospital.

Our system isn't bad. It's pretty good to very good for most people, but pretty bad for some people. As far as spending more than anyone, that's not very surprising as we're the richest country in the world by far. Think of it as welfare and jobs program for medical professionals. Edit: Even with Medicare, which is single payer, the Congress tried to control costs but couldn't because of the medical lobby. So making everything single payer won't necessarily reduce costs, it'll just force lobbyists to give bigger bribes.

Yeah, but that's a fundamental problem with your system. Do insurance premiums ever go down in cost but coverage go up? In order to be an effective/ efficient system that ought to happen at some point yet all that has been heard for decades is how the costs are always increasing and fewer people have insurance. The problem with a for profit approach remain the same as last time we had this discussion- insurance will always want to minimise costs and maximise profits; either by not insuring risky people/ cutting coverage to those who become sick or by gouging those who are not sick but have to have insurance. Realistically they do both to an extent. Those are the economic imperatives involved in a capitalistic health system and they're not conducive to a well functioning health system, aren't efficient and aren't economically sensible to anyone except the insurers. They also cannot be changed with the way the US political system works and with US attitudes as they are which makes any modifications an exercise in damage limitation rather than an actual fix. The problem with our system isn't the insurance companies, popular as that view may be. The problem is there's no competition between providers, thus they can charge whatever they can get away with. Further, since a third party normally pays instead of the consumer, the consumer doesn't care about costs. But I'm curious, is there a health system where costs go down while quality and coverage go up?

Yeah, like you supported him in the first place.

I'm going to wait to read some independent analysis until I decide if the bill is more good than bad. But I'll point out even with Obamacare there are still lots of uninsured. And there are lots of people who are not subsidized under Obamacare who still can't afford the rising health insurance premiums. Also most places in US do have some kind of public healthcare option for those who can't afford private healthcare.

Well, thanks. I assume you're reading Democrat's propaganda. It's illegal in US not to treat someone with a life-threatening condition btw.

United States. It's here because it came up before, I guess enough derailing though.

House passes the healthcare bill. Don't know if it's good or not or good for the country, but it is a tremendous political achievement. Not sure what's going to happen in the Senate. Edit: Ha, ha, this is funny - Marine Le Pen: "France will be led by a woman, either me or Angela Merkel!" Edit2: Bernie bros.

Seems to me reading the article that the $500 dollar fine has less to do with "doing math without permission of the state" and more to do with the fact that the state has determined - through their license board - that the only people who can call themselves engineers are those who are officially dues paying engineer license holders in the state. Someone could do all the math they want, they just couldn't represent themselves as an 'engineer' in doing so unless they were an engineering license holder. This may also be an issue, but its a different kind of issue, I think. If the article is correct, he's fined for this: "practicing engineering without being registered." It's true some states (like Texas) have laws that you can't call yourself an engineer without being registered (a professional engineer), but I've never heard about "practicing engineering". All Oregon tech firms would have to shut down if they start enforcing this, as very few engineers are registered as it requires a very tough exam which is completely useless for most engineering positions. A woman is murdered over an insult parrot: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/05/04/woman-killed-by-neighbor-after-allegedly-training-pet-parrot-to-insult-him.html

More on the laughing incident: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jeff-sessions-laugh-congressional-hearing_us_590929bbe4b05c39768420ef

Yes, yes, laughter causes severe and irreparable harm, nobody should be allowed to bully our glorious leader attorney general like that, etc etc That's not the point. If the laughter was really reflexive as she claims, there's no offense, but if it was intentional as prosecution claims, then it's no different than shouting something out. And again, she has the right to do all that, but not at the hearing.

The thing is in the future, perhaps as soon as 2020, we may have cause to rue their use of the "nuclear option". Folks who enjoy seeing their "team" exercise power and stick to their enemies need to remember one day that power will be in the hands of someone else. The left wingers of this country were loving the way Obama spent eight years usurping power from the Congress, from the States, from thin air. Now all that power and more importantly the precedent to do even more is in the hands of Donald Trump.Politics is cyclical. Right now the Republicans hold all the cards. Withing the next 8 years that might all reverse. In fact it's even likely it will. That is one of the biggest arguments against allowing the government to expand it's power. The Democrats don't buy that argument though, so it doesn't help if Republicans do. As far as filibuster, there's no way Democrats would keep the filibuster if it didn't suit them in the future. Harry Reid already showed the way. Republicans holding on to filibuster is just wishful thinking and unilateral disarmament. Besides, as I said before, filibuster made some sense when the two parties got together occasionally for the good of the country, but these days only leads to complete paralysis while the house is on fire. As I said a little while back, the Republicans are divided thus they were forced to negotiate with the Dems, and negotiating with Dems means Dems get everything they want, as they know any government shut down would be blamed on the Repubes. And you'd get nothing. Public pressure doesn't work because most people don't care, and Dems don't give a rat's ass what Republican voters think. Republicans paid no price for opposing Garland, and Dems wouldn't pay a price either, especially if Trump nominated someone they could easily portray as "far right" and extreme.

Conservatives do generally believe in protecting other people's rights, unlike the left that's become increasingly totalitarian and insane. But freedom doesn't mean being free to harm others.

If protest during Senate hearings weren't illegal, it would happen constantly and there would be nothing that could be done except removing the protesters over and over. I don't expect Ben to understand how laws work, or how anything works really. Said no one ever! smth smth 2nd amendment, need for conservative Supreme Court justices, etc That would be the 1st amendment. They have a first amendment right to protest outside, but not inside where they're being disruptive.

Perhaps they don't believe that her laughter was a reflex. It's legal to protest, but not during Senate hearings.