Monkeypox

Your post makes zero sense. It fails to address the appointed flaws in your analogy and it's also a logical flaw to say it's a mandate or nothing. I'm not okay with the federal government overstepping the bounds set on them by the Constitution, especially if it improves absolutely nothing and doesn't address the fundamental problems I've stated. And either way, you're going to end up subsidizing the irresponsible. People who have insurance are actually far more irresponsible re: their own personal health than those who pay out of pocket, in reality.

Actually, Medicare and Medicaid were the first move to comprehensive medical care. COMPREHENSIVE medical care insurance is the reason the cost has gotten out of hand. If health insurance worked the way it was intended... for large, unexpected, catastrophic expenditures, it would me much, much cheaper. THAT'S one the big problems. Demand isn't being driven by need, no matter what the pundits on both sides try to tell you. Otherwise, medical device and drug companies wouldn't be spending what they do on advertising. I pay out of pocket, so I actually KNOW what things cost (In such cases that they'll actually discuss prices with you). As such, I make informed decisions about what tests are run and why, because, I can tell you, about 80% of what's ordered isn't necessary. They're covering themselves and the consumer doesn't care because, hey, they've got insurance, and "someone else" is paying for it. The physician, meanwhile, has financial gain for ordering all of these services. Even with Medicare and Medicaid, some of these services are the difference between making a 2% profit and 20% profit. Do you know how much insurance companies are paying out for people who need to be told over and over again not to eat garbage, or who go into the doctor because they've had an upset stomach since this morning, or they're running a low-grade fever now for 3 hours? Medicare has been cutting reimbursement for years now, and in many cases, it's actually increasing their overall cost, because those in charge of it are only capable of looking at immediate savings on cost reports. IOW, they look at PRICES, but aren't capable of analyzing COSTS. Our reimbursement rates for Medicare and Medicaid have dropped a good 12% since I've been doing this, but the condition of patients are now such that they require more services. Results... their costs are going up while reimbursement rates drop. Medicare will have to continue to increase its tax. As it is, it's an unsustainable Ponzi scheme. If you REALLY want to fix it, here's the only realistic way. You can't, constitutionally, force people to buy in. But you need to kill Medicare, kill Medicaid, and kill private insurance. Get rid of them. They don't work, and there's no way to fix them. A single risk pool, nationally, with premiums based solely on age, covering only catastrophic care. Outside of that, the taxes that currently are used to provide for Medicare and Medicaid need to be put into individual HSAs and a gap coverage between those HSAs and what catastrophes actually befall poor people such as myself. I say this as a person whose mother was a nurse for 40 years, whose sister-in-law is a physician's assistant, and currently sits at a desk billing Medicare and Medicaid. I've worked in medical schools and for medical companies. I pay out of pocket for all my health care, and have done so for the last 6 years.

When I moved to California, I kept my car insurance. Had to change my address of course and that about tripled my rates, but it was something that took hours. Also when I moved to California, I lost my health insurance, and have been unable to get it back. So now I pay cash for medical care and have a savings account in case of catastrophic.

Well, see: 1) You don't HAVE to have auto insurance just to live in America 2) Auto insurance coverage is regulated at the STATE level, and not at the federal level 3) Auto insurance is not tied to your employment. 4) You don't have to get a different auto insurance plan from a different company if you move to a new state. 5) Auto insurance is meant to protect OTHER people. The state government could care less how you replace/fix your own car. 6) Auto insurance IS ONLY catastrophic insurance. It doesn't cover routine or preventative maintenance. 7) If Auto insurance were like health care... let's say I had an exhaust leak. I would be forced to take my car to my primary mechanic. He (or she) would then charge me to tell me I had to go to an exhaust specialist. I take it to an exhaust specialist. He would prescribe me something to fix it, which would be patented proprietary parts ... OR I'd have to go to an exhaust mechanic to actually take the car apart and/or weld whatever needed to be welded. After I got that fixed, I'd have to schedule a followup with the exhaust specialist and/or my primary care mechanic for any further orders or developments. I think that health care SHOULD be like auto insurance, actually. Which is to say catastrophic only, unrelated to employment, bought on an individual basis only, and not have to be completely re-purchased if I moved to New Mexico. Much larger pools, larger companies, less expensive.

The Constitution provides for the federal government to organize and fund the military "for the common defense." It also states that all powers not explicitly granted to the federal government belong to the states. That's the point of contention. What are the federal government's boundaries, as defined by the Constitution? Socialism is just a red herring. (on both sides, and yes, "Clue" reference intended)

Yes, there are two different funds, and they can't mix. But Allen ISD and its residents have total control over their tax rates and priorities. FWIW, Allen laid off more than 80 teachers and support staff, as well as applying for a waiver so they can increase class sizes in K-4. AND, it's not like they didn't have an option to raise tax rates or issue a bond to keep from losing those jobs. That's why they just raised the tax rate. Otherwise, they were projected to have to lose another 80-100 jobs. So their priorities were still 1) Build football stadium 2) Protect the teachers and staff and quality of our education. Showing that they've JUST NOW decided to fix this only further illustrates that the priorities in Allen were out of whack. Those 80+ teachers and staff still had to find new jobs. Class size this year still sucked. They still wanted a shiny new stadium that won't pay for itself until most of us will be well in the ground first and foremost. Also, it's misleading to say it will allow them to hire ADDITIONAL teachers. It will allow them to re-hire approximately the number of staff they had to let go, and potentially unlock the salary freeze they put on, which still doesn't necessarily accommodate the need to increase the number of teachers and staff(as student population grows). IOW, they've now funded their standstill.

Exactly. And in a number of cases, tenure TRACK employees are actually at-will(depending on terms of contracts, obviously). At-will is a default.

So does that mean I SHOULD or SHOULDN'T want him on the Supreme Court?

Remember how much everyone cared when hockey was locked out? Me neither.

Just how much freaking time it wastes to get another employee on the HOPES they're not as big a screw-up as the last one.

As it is, and trust me as a person who has hired and fired in both the public and private sector, and has to interview and train people. With or without this policy, it's a PITA the fire, find, interview, hire, and train new people - so much so, that in BOTH sectors you put up with more incompetent asshats that need firing than you should.

"It's a completely alien world." Unlike Avatar, which featured nothing but the well-tread land of cliches.

I agree. I think firearms would be a better illustration, since the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, and yet it requires a photo ID to purchase one.

Wait, so the 30 states that require photo IDs have a poll tax?! How do they get away with that?! Irony is the DOJ responsible for funneling thousands of guns to drug cartels to be used to murder countless Mexicans arguing that voter ID laws are discriminatory towards Latinos.

No kidding. Back when I worked in the system it was a 7-step disciplinary process to get someone fired. You'd pretty much have to start burning buildings down to get in real trouble.

I'd rename it the SEC.

Because ONE player from a school ONE YEAR is an outlier. Because they're the best of the best in the entire Division of college football. They don't invest the same amount of scouting to ALL of Division II that they do to the top 25 of BCS. The idea that ONE GUY from a team means it's some kind of free-for-all is ludicrous. If you don't have talent, you won't have a successful program. Also, as I pointed out, a TON of scouting happens in the weeks of bowl practices and bowl games. If you're not a successful program, you're sitting at home during those weeks and your guys are not getting scouted. Program success has a LOT to do with evaluating talent.

Republican candidates have helped.

Yes. There are a lot of reasons why people get scouted. They come out of high school with the tangibles, they're a high rated recruit, making them more likely to go to a big, successful school in a major conference. More scouting resources are devoted to the bigger conferences for these reasons. Even the lowest of those in the Big 6 conferences out-recruit us. So during the season, most scouting is devoted to the big schools and conferences. You go to a small school, you put up big numbers or play on a successful team, you end up with a bowl invite and/or a Senior Bowl invite. The vast majority of the final decisions for Combine invites happen in the last few games and the weeks up to and including the bowls. Read about any of the small school guys going to the Combine and you'll find common threads of bowl games and/or Senior Bowls. Those Div II kids are THE BEST of Div II. That means they put up numbers or dominated within the division AND they have the tangibles on their side. Those small school kids are actually MORE likely to get an invite in some cases than someone toiling away in the mid-majors because scouts will want a BETTER look at them, to see if they're the real deal. That lineman from Midwestern State looks like an All-pro from the tape, but he missed the Senior Bowl and scouts want more to judge him on. This happens all the time. Also, you'll find that TE/HB types come out of all kinds of schools for the Combine. And MOST of them won't get drafted. They do it so they can fill up the slots and the drills, and, again, get a better look at the thin positions coming out. There are MANY reasons these kids are getting invites and Dunbar didn't, but CONSPIRACY isn't one of them. Success as a program isn't the only thing there, but having ONE KID from Amherst or Midwestern State or Southern Ratbutt College doesn't mean it's a free-for-all. And, for the record, Amherst has put out more pro prospects than we have the last 5 years.

How many from each of those schools were invited?

In order: 1) Neither 2) Texas State 3) Pudding ........................................................ 632) UTSA 633) Both

Utah State: Turbin - WAC Conference player of the year. Monster year. Declared early. His numbers have gotten better over time. Lance's have gotten worse. Played in a bowl game. Wagner - MVP at the Senior Bowl. Also impressed scouts with Senior Bowl practice. I believe he was a 4-yr starter and 2-yr captain. Played in a bowl game, and the Senior Bowl. Temple: Bernard Pierce - Scored 27 TDs this year. Played in and won a bowl game. Ranked as a top 10 RB prospect. Evan Rodriguez - Played in and won a bowl game. TE/HB prospect (thin position). Tahir Whitehead - Played in and won a bowl game. LB prospect. Showed up in big games. Played special teams. Washington: Chris Polk - RB. Pac-whatever. Highly recruited. Played in a bowl game and the Senior Bowl There's more, but I'm tired. Point being, we didn't play in a Bowl Game. Lance didn't play in the Senior Bowl. We're not in a BCS conference. So anyone who thought he'd get an invite has imbibed too much Green Koolaid. The major scouting takes place during the practices leading up to bowl games and in the bowl games themselves, particularly if you're not from a major conference. That's what drives the combine invites. All of those schools and players had those opportunities. While I think Lance certainly has the skills to compete, he's not had an opportunity to truly demonstrate it, for a multitude of reasons. But it is what it is.

Did you read the article? Marijuana is the cash crop.

Not entirely accurate. They WILL adapt, but you'll be looking at a number of enterprises that simply won't be able to survive the hit. Consolidation will likely happen, as happened in the US in the post-Prohibition era. Only the cartels that are heavy and diversified enough will last. LESS cartels will lead to less violence, for the same reasons. The small fries will be gone. Most of the medium fries will be, too. With a 65% stake in marijuana, they won't be able to just fill that gap with other drugs, because of demand. Marijuana drives the drug business, and you don't blow up your trailer making it. Also, because it's farmed (not made in a lab), it's illegality relies much more on it being outsourced. You'll have that with cocaine and heroin still, but, again, those aren't the market. The market is marijuana. A good article: http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Mexico-s-cartels-rely-on-their-cash-crop-2078623.php

Quite frankly, law enforcement officers aren't people to trust on the issue of a drug's effects. Law enforcement during Prohibition would gladly have told you all the evils surrounding liquor. Violent crime surrounds marijuana today primarily as a SIDE EFFECT of it being illegal. The problem is that the vast majority of people that law enforcement come across are dirtbags. And yes, when you engage in one crime, it's far more likely that you engage in others. BECAUSE marijuana is illegal, then the primary source of information for law enforcement are going to be dirtbags. I'd be willing to bet that it becomes increasingly difficult to separate their interactions with marijuana from ones that have combinations of marijuana, alcohol, and meth these days. I know functioning members of society, who have kids and families and make 6 figures and lead productive lives and aren't violent and commit no other crimes than being casual marijuana smokers. In fact, I'd say I worry far more about my alcoholic friends than the ones I know that smoke WAY TOO MUCH weed (some of whom get more done in a day than I do all week, the bastards). It's not a reporting issue. It's a reality issue. There's a plateau for the effects of marijuana. You can't smoke it until you piss your pants, puke, or die. Alcohol, however, can kill you all by itself. Also, whether it's the paranoia or the neurological effects of marijuana that cause it, studies reveal that alcohol makes drivers more likely to speed, marijuana more likely to drive slower. Now, they're equally likely to cause an accident, because in both cases, reaction times are significantly slowed. BUT, once again, there's a plateau for marijuana. You won't find a person driving 100mph and passed out on marijuana. You will on alcohol. My brother's a police officer, and I've talked to him in length about this. I have NO PROBLEM with enforcing the laws, stupid or not. But I wouldn't trust a single person involved in law enforcement to lecture me on the physiological or behavioral effects of different drugs. They don't deal with drugs, they deal with criminals. The inability to separate the two presents an obvious bias. A cop's never going to be at a party where people smoke marijuana and drink and nothing bad happens. And, once again, for the record, I don't smoke. But there's so much misinformation being thrown around here that it's ridiculous. I just think it's funny and hypocritical that anyone who drinks or owns a gun is against the decriminalization of marijuana.