toastywombel

That is why I think the legislation passed yesterday is primarily a joke and a handout to the insurance companies. It doesn't address the true problem with our healthcare system. The only reason why I would be inclined to support it is because it seems to allow the dems to atleast get their foot in the door when it comes to reforming healthcare.

This is a good point, and it makes health insurance a little different from car insurance, however, I do not support insurance as far as health goes really at all. But, people are required car insurance so that if they get into a wreck with other cars, their insurance can cover the other cars' repairs. If everyone can have health insurance that will insure that less people will get sick through the transfer of diseases, because now everyone is getting treated, which in turn can lower costs over time.

I really like this, it is nice mooey. I was curious to see what lens flair looked like on it.

iNow, I think that unsupported opinions should be available to view as equally as supported opinions are. It is really up to the reader if they decide what opinion has more value. If the reader accepts the supported opinion that is great, and I think in most cases the reader will. If the reader accepts the unsupported opinion, well you can't fix stupid. I don't think that SFN should get into the business of censoring unsupported opinions though, leave it up to the reader to decide. And as always I think it is good to be kind, avoid personal attacks, and overwhelm the opposing view with facts supporting your views. I have not always been perfect at doing this, but none of us are. Wombel Method.

Actually the creation of the universe seems to be the biggest free lunch of all. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged "Space Shuttle Discovery launches at the start of STS-120. ... A typical payload capacity is about 22700 kilograms (50000 lb), but can be raised depending on ..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle That is 25 tons, so as far a a 1000 ton payload maybe not, but to say that the laws of physics don't allow for more than eight people to go into space is ridiculous. Unless you can show me the Max people allowed to go into space law. Also it is good to note that fusion technology is not that far off. We have already created sustained fusion reactions that are contained by magnetic fields. The problem right now is they aren't efficient (it takes more energy to contain the reaction than you can get out of it). But. . . "On May 30, 2009, the US Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), primarily a weapons lab, announced the creation of a high-energy laser system, the National Ignition Facility, which can heat hydrogen atoms to temperatures only existing in nature in the cores of stars. The new laser is expected to have the ability to produce, for the first time, more energy from controlled, inertially-confined nuclear fusion than was required to initiate the reaction.[21]" http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.12fab6f6c00a65e15e6fb5e305aacbb7.41&show_article=1

It is because insurance companies are essentially "middle-men" who make money off of having money.

Why can't we have healthcare for everyone? It costs too much money. Why? Well one reason is, doctors have to get paid an above average income, because it cost a lot of money for them to become doctors. I think the short conversation above makes one point very clear. We need to fix the education systems available for becoming a doctor, make it cheaper somehow. Maybe get rid of privatized student loans and replace it with a publicly funded system. Doctors have to get paid less for public healthcare, but because they have to pay a lot for student loans? Jryan, it seems you do not understand that insurance, loans, and finance are systems run by middle men making money off of money. They are a drain on our economy. These institutions allow money to be available to the public, but it is often with strings attached, and set up in a way so they can make a profit. These parts of our economy produce no goods, no actual product. They are sucking money from the economy simply because they have money. If thats constitutional, I could really care less, because I think it is obvious that it is not the right thing to do. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged The whole survey was based on public option vs not public option healthcare reform, it was done in December, you cannot use numbers from that to prove your point on the healthcare bill now. It simply isn't a relevant survey, and on the article you cited, did you even read it again. Scroll past the graph and there are words, "Despite the recent slump in the U.S. economy, the health care industry continues to grow. This is good news for anyone interested in a medical career, including doctors. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the employment outlook for physicians is bright; a 14 percent employment growth rate is projected over the next several years." So let me get this straight, the page you mentioned from Payscale.com is actually betting against the fact that 1/3 of physicians might leave. That is pretty bad man Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI was expecting that a response would have been made by now.

That is not true iNow, the people who do not support their points here, are a good contrast against people who do support their points, to an anonymous reader of course. That is how one educates the public on how to spot the "bs" from the good stuff. If someone just disagrees, I think most readers would tend to favor with your point of view as opposed to theirs.

I agree with the above, the access to opinions on the forum should be equal, and it should be left up to the author to decide which opinion he agrees with the most. On that note, the "under god" part of our pledge is not constitutional, I mean it is pretty blatant. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" However, even though it is unconstitutional (which doesn't totally discount an idea, its good to try and be practical as opposed to governing under old documents) I don't think it is a battle worth fighting. There are many pressing issues facing us today. Look at it simply, this under god in the constitution debate is a group of people arguing with another group of people over what jumble of words is appropriate for/and to represent a society such as ours. Really its rather archaic, we make a verbal sound, like any other animal, that represents our tribe/society/group. It is truly a small aspect of everyday life.

I highly doubt the authenticity of this article, based on the obvious bias, funders, and previous incorrectness by the Cybercast News Service. "The CNSNews.com (or Cybercast News Service), formerly called the Conservative News Service, is an American news website owned by the Media Research Center. " From MRC's website: "The mission of the Media Research Center is to bring balance and responsibility to the news media. Leaders of America's conservative movement have long believed that within the national news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public's understanding of critical issues. On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove - through sound scientific research - that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene. What they launched that fall is the now acclaimed --- Media Research Center (MRC)." Here is a list of major funders to the MRC, Exxon Mobil The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc. Sarah Scaife Foundation Castle Rock Foundation John M. Olin Foundation, Inc. The Carthage Foundation JM Foundation Here is more information on a couple of the funders "The overall objective of the Bradley Foundation, however, is to return the U.S. -- and the world -- to the days before governments began to regulate Big Business, before corporations were forced to make concessions to an organized labor force. In other words, laissez-faire capitalism: capitalism with the gloves off." "All four have been heavily involved in financing conservative causes under the direction of reclusive billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, whose wealth was inherited from the Mellon industrial, oil, uranium and banking fortune." http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Media_Research_Center "In 1994, the MRC first printed the following excerpt from Howell Raines' book, Fly Fishing Through the Midlife Crisis:[1] Then one day in the summer of 1981 I found myself at the L.L. Bean store in Freeport, Maine. I was a correspondent in the White House in those days, and my work -- which consisted of reporting on President Reagan's success in making life harder for citizens who were not born rich, white, and healthy -- saddened me....My parents raised me to admire generosity and to feel pity. I had arrived in our nation's capital [in 1981] during a historic ascendancy of greed and hard-heartedness....Reagan couldn't tie his shoelaces if his life depended on it. But the quotes were cobbled together from two different sections of the book; the span of the ellipsis between "hard-heartedness" and "Reagan couldn't tie" is 28 pages. Further, the statement "Reagan couldn't tie his shoelaces if his life depended on it" refers in context to Reagan's fly-fishing skills, not his IQ.[2] The MRC later appended a "clarification" putting the statements in their proper context." http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Media_Research_Center Its always good to know your sources jryan Furthermore, did you even look at the survey you cited? "On December 17, 2009 The Medicus Firm, a national physician search firm based in Dallas and Atlanta, published the results of a survey they conducted with 1,000 physicians regarding their attitudes toward health reform." http://www.nejmjobs.org/rpt/physician-survey-health-reform-impact.aspx So it is good to note, this survey was done before the healthcare bill had even been finalized. Also it is good to note that the sample size of this survey is relatively small only 1000 physicians. If you read through the article too which can be found at http://www.themedicusfirm.com/pages/medicus-media-survey-reveals-impact-health-reform, you will notice this, "Additionally, many physicians feel that health reform will cause income to decrease, while workload will increase. Forty-one percent of respondents feel that income and practice revenue will “decline or worsen dramatically” as a result of health reform with a public option, and 31 percent feel that a public option will cause income and practice revenue to “decline or worsen somewhat” as a result. This makes for a total of 72 percent of respondents who feel there would be a negative impact on income. When asked the same question regarding health reform implemented without a public option, a total of 50 percent of respondents feel that income and practice revenue will be negatively impacted, including 14 percent of total respondents who feel that income and practice revenue will “decline or worsen dramatically.” Additionally, 36 percent feel it would “decline or worsen somewhat." It is good to note there is no public option in the current healthcare plan. Also I would like to point out the fuzzy math used by the author in this article. "Forty-one percent of respondents feel that income and practice revenue will “decline or worsen dramatically” as a result of health reform with a public option, and 31 percent feel that a public option will cause income and practice revenue to “decline or worsen somewhat” as a result." This seems like the same question asked twice and then the percentages are just added together? Furthermore, back to the sample of this survey, the methodology of the survey can be found at http://www.themedicusfirm.com/pages/survey Primary Care (Internal Medicine, Pediatrics, Family Practice) 34.3% Specialists (all other) 65.7% That doesn't seem like a well balanced group, considering there are more primary care doctors compared to specialists. Here is another interesting question that somewhat disproves the point the article was trying to make and applies more to the current situation, How do you think the passage of health reform WITHOUT a public option would affect your professional/practice plans, if at all? No change: 70% I would try to retire early: 22% I would try to leave medical practice even if not near retirement age: 8% I would go back into practicing medicine (if non-clinical or semi-retired now): 1% Well what is going to pass is health reform without a public option, 70% said this would not change there practice/professional plans. Now finally I would like to point out this question on the survey, How many years have you practiced medicine? Haven’t started 10% Less than one year 3% 1-3 years 20% 4-6 years 18% 7-10 years 7% 11-15 years 8% 16-20 years 10% 21+ years 24% So it is good to note that 1/10 of the doctors who answered this survey were not even currently practicing at the time. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedRegarding the OP. I think reconcilliation is fine, but I think the business of the bill being passed without an actual vote is somewhat fishy.

To expand upon what insane alien said, it really depends on how you look at the photon, from a classical point of view or a particle point of view. This is from wikipedia, This is what insane alien was talking about. "The factor by which the speed of light is decreased in a material is called the refractive index of the material. In a classical wave picture, the slowing can be explained by the light inducing electric polarization in the matter, the polarized matter radiating new light, and the new light interfering with the original light wave to form a delayed wave." But in particle physics the photon gains mass as it moves through a medium, this is because it blends with the surrounding matter. This causes the effective mass of the photon to increase, thus making it impossible for the photon to travel at c, it must travel less than c.

It is also good to note, we have no reason to believe that the explosion from the big bang was uniform in three dimensional space. Even if it were, the big bang does not just include the expansion and creation of matter, it also is about the expansion of space-time. Space-time expands faster than the matter and energy in our universe spreads apart, that is obvious by astronomical observation. Because of this the Universe is stretched out in a horizontal or vertical fashion (depending on which way you look at it) but essentially it is flat. Imagine a set of small balls on a sheet, if you drop the balls on the sheet while it is all crumpled up, they will be in various arrangements, but if you spread out the sheet, the balls will arrange in a generally flat fashion, with the sheet. This is from wikipedia: "A resolution to this problem is offered by inflationary theory. During the inflationary period, spacetime expanded to such an extent that its curvature would have been smoothed out. Thus, it is theorized that inflation drove the Universe to a very nearly spatially flat state, with almost exactly the critical density."

Alright, well I like to note, i like the change the bear's key made to my previous submission (changing angles of the electron trails around the atom). I will try to redo what was done and add in the lens flair effect. Another note, nice job mooey, your logos put mine to shame

Very good points. Even though religious answers to such events can be comforting, they do not allow you to really devise ways to predict such events and then prevent it. Of course a little kid wouldn't understand a scientifically explained reason for their mother's death, like said above, there's a time and a place for everything.

Ahh, that was a refreshing dose of the daily show.

You know, I always wondered whether there were gravitons, or instead it was just space time being warped like, but I think its both, I think both is happening at the same time.

interesting, thanks for updating.

Well now it seems your question is, "Why did mommy choose to die to save me?" Now that may be impossible to answer scientifically because it is a question about motive, but I was referring to your last post when you asked, "Why did mommy die while saving me?" that is a different question. The second could be answered given enough data about the situation, but not the first.

Hey man, I live in the United States and I drive a stick, but automatic can be nice for 4x4 in extreme situations, of course depending on the type of automatic transmission you have. I still prefer a stick, but if four wheeling in the desert, one can go through a clutch quick on a hot day if just putting through the dunes.

Can you please show the mathematics that allowed to you to come to the conclusion that your ideas would guarantee 1000 years of motoring. I did some of the Math to on your first idea. The following numbers are from the EPA and can be found here The average passenger car releases 0.916 lb per mile of carbon dioxide. That means after travelling 10 miles, you now have 9.16 lbs of carbon to carry, after a hundred miles you have to carry 91.6 lbs, and you have to unload that somehow at like a drop off station? And then fill up with gas? It seems like it would be a hassle to many. Also I doubt the ability of a 50cc Moped engine to be as efficient as our current oil extraction techniques. A 50cc engine would not be able to lift a lot of oil out of the ground because oil is very heavy. One gallon of oil weighs around 6-7 lbs. So if those two on the right side were 20 gallon containers each that would be 240-270 lbs. Now imagine a guy weighing 240-270 lbs riding a 50cc bike. Also that is assuming that they are 20 gallon containers, again only assuming that your device with the 50cc motor would be carrying 40 total gallons of oil up at a time. Also you would need a system to filter out all the mud, elaborate system designs of oil rigs are here, in which mud filtration is included. Also after a pump is put in place, like a grasshoper that sucks the oil up, you can reference that process here. Oil is often mixed with sand to and other sediments, so simply scooping it up with a 50cc motor is not really efficient.

Who taught you that?

Well okay so you try to find answers from a Religious perspective and everyone has a happy, accepting moment, that is great. But if you can scientifically explain why mommy died 'saving me' you can understand exactly what caused the event and take precautions to prevent mommy from dying again in the future. Maybe making the area where 'mommy' drowned gated off, or drained? Or you know maybe designing a better, faster health care system or or offer protective-health suits. I think it is good to be spiritual and at one with your beliefs. This can prove helpful in accepting situations like the example above, but often religion is a specific matrix of beliefs, a system, an ideology, and even though spirituality may sooth the soul, science has a special place as the separation of man from our animal brethren (just joking). But seriously its logos vs pathos vs ethos, religion for the most part is Pathos and maybe sometimes Logos. And although pathos can seem to inspire, to give life, it has a dark side and can take it away. While ethos is what really teaches us the lessons, credibility, usually is implying someone who has earned respect. You probably don't understand the above at all its gibberish, but its okay I am sure you got the friendly gist of the message

Whoa Whoa don't change topic so quickly my friend. You said this, "However, if the pre-set number of those separate entities, for any reason decide to alter or change the meaning of the Constitution, (provide, instead of promote) and allow that Constitution to remain viable, they MUST follow the agreed to method, process for amending, opposed to simple legislation or the use of judicial interpreting." So you insisted that they (I would guess that means politicians on the left end of the spectrum) need to follow the necessary steps to amend the constitution instead of just passing simple legislation. That was your argument. I then proved that your argument is not legally sound citing the Butler case. And even though the specific government program was ruled unconstitutional, the courts left future decisions of what falls under general welfare to congress. Therefore, it is perfectly legal for congress to pass simple legislation that has a possibility of falling under the 'general welfare category'. Furthermore, if you are arguing if something is illegal, you cannot then say, well what your citing is just legal interpretation, when I show that it is in-fact perfectly legal. It seems like you want to argue from a standpoint of 'jackson33's government model'. If we are discussing the legality of things though, we must go by the current government model. On a side note, isn't it interesting that no conservative lawyers have gotten a case about medi-care or medi-caid, which is practically socialized healthcare for older, disabled, and children all the way to the supreme court with a rule that it is unconstitutional. As for the slippery slope argument. For starters, I do not attest to this argument, and you know why? Because nearly half of the voting electorate in the United States tends towards your type of thinking. That is why it wont be a slippery slope, activism on the right. It is good to keep in mind that the democrats are anything but efficient at passing legislation. Also when you said, "Care, if accepted as a "right", would be, as it's being portrayed, then so would, food, housing, jobs or not working" Hmm. how does the last one fit. I can support government assistance for some food (which is already done), housing (eehh I think shelters and salvation army do alright), jobs (maybe to help people find jobs or stimulate job growth). But not working? I don't know anyone who supports government money to go to people not working. Why because I want affordable socialized healthcare, and we may pass healthcare legislation that will do that are we on the left categorized as communists. Also you said, something to the effect, that joe millionaire gets great healthcare, and even though its not fair that poor people don't get it, it would to hard to give that quality of care to everyone. My question is why? And I think that is a big question of everyone on the left, why not? We may never be able to achieve total fairness, but why not always try to do it, as far as healthcare is concerned?

Where ignorance is bliss, tis folly to be wise.

It is nice you made an observation that my sentence was anthropomorphic. The point was that if the above was a possible reason why people's noses and ears grow bigger. Maybe through some old genetic trait that has been passed through species to species, and maybe is still around. I think you can get the gist of what I am saying without picking apart the semantics of my question.