DJBruce

I would say that they are saying once the plan has begun to be implemented, the Secretary of Health will have to present a budget to Congress. I have a feeling they have a rough estimate of what the plan will cost, but like everything once the plan begins the actual costs will become more clear.

It would be ridiculous to consider the problems of TennCare when trying to reform healthcare as it helps show exactly what might need to be reformed. Although there are many differences from a state program and a national program, their is much that TennCare could show us. Although this seems reasonable from the stand point of the insurance company- it increases profit- it will greatly expand the size of the public plan. I cannot seem an appropriate way to stop this as, I am against the government interfering with the health insurance companies themselves. This was one of my major concerns when I first considered the idea of a national plan, but from what I have heard- Senator Specter's townhall, although please don't quote me on this- the current plan will tax companies which do not provide health insurance. This would fix the problem granted the tax was slightly greater than the amount a company would spend on healthcare. If the program is national the problem with citizens from other states would be non-existence. The problem with illegal immigrants is a different matter; personally I do not feel they should be granted healthcare as they are not legal US citizens, but I feel that their will be differing opinions on this.

Here is a interesting video of a townhall meeting held by Senator McCaskill in Missouri, where she calls the crowd out on their yelling and unruly actions, saying, 25XvbpSgkY0 See roughly one minute into the movie. At another point Senator McCaskill tells the crowd, I really enjoyed somebody standing up to the crowd and telling them exactly how they are acting, like children, and how this will accomplish nothing. Although it is saddening that it appears the message was lost on the crowd. My source for the second qoute.

There are many threads discussing the current healthcare reform, yet none of them are specifically geared to discussing the entire bill in question. This has meant many threads have been diverted from their original purpose and spiraled into massive tangents. So here is a thread to discuss HR 3200 in its entirety. HR 3200 PDF Version HR 3200 HTML Version Please try to stick to discussing the issues present by the bill, not slippery slope arguments about "Obama-Care. I apoligize to the moderators if they feel this is a repeat thread and feel that it should be deleted.

Could you please site were in the bill the it discuses restricting access to private health insurance after January 1st, 2010, because out of all the material and news-reports I have read and saw I have never once heard this. Even Senator Specter said today that the bill will tax companies that do not provide healthcare, thus creating an incentive for businesses to not cut their health insurance.You say you posted it in your first post, but I could not find it instead I found, Which again is basically go do the research yourself, and the link you provided links to a man named Peter Fleckenstein's twitter page. Besides having no idea what Mr. Fleckenstein's credentials are I cannot find any actual information on the issue you bring up, just a bunch of jiberish with some links. Just for the record twitter is not a reliable citation for any scholarly information.

I highly doubt that their will be a time of partisan peace in the near future. Regardless of the outcome of Obama's current policies. In a few months the campaign for midterm elections will begin and only further the partisanship. Once the dust from the midterm elections settles there will be about a year and a half from the presidential election which means the parties will go into overdrive attacking each other. So I don't see an end to this partisan ship for at least three years or so.

Senator Specter never urged the crowd to allow the healthcare reform bill to pass without reading it. He said, "Every bill is read through and understood by me before I vote." Senator Specter did not anywhere in the event in question say I wanna pass this bill without reading it. People in this thread have acknowledged that the supporters of the bill have acted poorly and have disrupted a civil debate on the issue.

I have never actually seen that notation, before what exactly is that called? I realized the factorials do not work with negative exponents so that's why I put the restriction that the exponent must be greater than or equal to one. So what your saying is because when n=a you get: [math]\left(\frac{(a!)(0)}{(0!)(0)}\right)x^{0}=\frac{0}{0}[/math] that I should actually restrict this to [math]n< a[/math]. Thank you for taking the time to read my proof, your corrections and opinions are greatly appreciated.

Yes their is a lot of intellectual honesty, but the use of logical fallacies is strictly against the rules, See Section 2: Rule 4. If you post fallacies you will normally be called out on it.

You were arguing that the fact the people were lied to justified their yelling and screaming. Senator Specter explaining his process of splitting the bill up into sections with his staff is not a lie, well I don't think it is one. So if they were not being lied to their yelling was not justified by your argument, and this makes your argument moot.

I can understand their frustration, and maybe their anger is merited, but that does not excuse their actions. Just because you are anger is merited does not mean you get a pass on yelling and disrupting a debate. If they are angry and feel they are being lied to then they should vocalize their way in a civil manner, just like they must in every other social interaction. I have done the research to support my opinions, but my research cannot support your opinions.

Yes, you pointed this out to me last night so I will qualify the proof by stating: [math]n \leq a [/math], but if [math] n=a [/math] then you are going to get: [math] \frac{a!}{0!}x^{0}=a! [/math] so if get a constant this means the next derivative should be zero, so I don't think it is that large of a flaw.

A honest and civilized discussion is one were citizens vocalize their opinions in a orderly way, and in turn listen respectfully to the opinions of others regardless if they agree with the other person's opinions or not. Yelling and screaming has no part in a civilized debate, as it does nothing but destroy the discussion. Simply making your point louder does not make it more convincing. There are many examples of opponents of the healthcare reform subverting a honest and civilized discussion. For example when the crowd in Philadelphia refused to allow Senator Arlen Specter to finish his statements they were subverting the discussion. Had the crowd allowed Senator Specter finish his remarks and then had they individually voiced their dissatisfaction there would have been no problem and they would have voiced their opinions to their senator. Then it should be easy for you to find the supporting evidence. The burden of proof is always on the one making the assertions, whether it is science, law, or a political forum.

Yes so some supporters of the bill are doing things to subvert a honest discussion of the bill, but so are some opponents of the current bill. The use of these tactics by either side is unjustified and disgraceful. We as citizens need to rise above this partisan strife and have a civilized discussion on the issue currently at hand. As for the Newt Gingrich interview, it was interesting to see a report actually stand up to a politician and call him out on his logical fallacies. Although it is completely reasonable to consider what Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel wrote and what this might means about President Obama is should not be confused with a discussion on the current healthcare reform bill. Also before you stereotype every member of this board I would suggest you read a few threads. Although many members tend to be more liberal not all of the board is and all members tend to be open mind and willing to listen to a logical argument.

The point of the financial stimulus plan was to stabilize and pull our economy out of the fatal nose dive it was in. You cannot measure the stimulus plan's success on the transparency of the program, you can only measure its success on the programs ability to stabilize the economy. As for judging the stimulus plan's success I feel that it will be impossible to judge the program's success for at least 4 or 5 years. The hindsight provided by time will provide us with the best judgement.

As for the existence of worm holes Martin posted a link while back which suggested the impossibility of their existence. Sadly the link is now broken but I still do have a quote from the paper. Thanks to Martin for posting this a while back and iNow for showing it to me. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAfter doing a little hunting I found a different link to the article previous linked by Martin.

I believe you are standing on the Super Bowl XLII halftime stage for Tom Petty and the Heart breakers. Super Bowl XLII happened in 2008.

As I worked on teaching my self calculus this summer I begin to wonder how to write a generic formula for the nth derivative of a equation of the form: [math]y=x^{a}[/math] [math]where: a\geq 1[/math] After thinking about it the pattern became obvious, but the proof took me a while to work out, in the end I came up with an inductive proof. Below is the proof I came up with. [math]Basis:[/math] [math]\frac{d^{n}y}{dx^{n}}=\left(\frac{a!}{(a-n)!}\right)x^{(a-n)}[/math] [math]Let: n=1[/math] [math]\frac{d^{1}y}{dx^{1}}=\left(\frac{a!}{(a-1)!}\right)x^{(a-1)}=ax^{(a-1)}[/math] This step is verified because I came to the form proven by the Power Rule. [math]Inductive: Let: n=(n+1)[/math] [math]\bullet \left(\frac{d^{(n+1)}y}{dx^{(n+1)}}\right)= \frac{dy}{dx}\left(\frac{d^{n}y}{dx^{n}}\right)=[/math] [math]\bullet \frac{dy}{dx}\left(\left(\frac{a!}{(a-n)!}\right)x^{(a-n)}\right)= [/math] Substitution [math]\bullet \left(\left(\frac{(a!)(a-n)}{(a-n)!}\right)x^{(a-n-1)}\right)= [/math] Power Rule [math]\bullet \left(\left(\frac{(a!)(a-n)}{\left((a-n)(a-n-1)(a-n-2)...(1)\right)}\right)x^{(a-n-1)}\right)= [/math] Definition of Factorial [math]\bullet \left(\left(\frac{(a!)}{\left((a-n-1)(a-n-2)...(1)\right)}\right)x^{(a-n-1)}\right)=[/math] Cancellation [math]\bullet \left(\left(\frac{(a!)}{((a-(n+1))!}\right)x^{(a-n-1)}\right)=[/math] Definition of Factorial and Factoring [math]\bullet \left(\left(\frac{(a!)}{\left((a-(n+1))!\right)}\right)x^{(a-(n+1))}\right) [/math] Factoring [math]So[/math] [math]\bullet \frac{d^{n}y}{dx^{n}}=\left(\frac{a!}{(a-n)!}\right)x^{(a-n)}[/math] I was wondering if my proof is correct and if it would be considered rigorous. Any correction or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

I am going to guess either n-propanol or isopropanol. Being that you are using alcohol to mean the ethanol and that propanol is slightly heavier and is flammable at room temperature. If insane_alien says this is right I will post a new question.

You are thinking along the right track but no that isn't it. The element was named after the city not the country. Nice try though.

Bismuth ______________________________________________________________ I am an element named after The City of Lights.

I feel I know the answer but since I am not going to the meeting I will let someone else answer.

Although your idea about seeing into the past is correct I doubt the telescope would have the resolution to see an image of a dinosaur or watch life unfold like a movie.

I like the name, Copernicus played a large role in changing peoples opinions on the solar system, granted he had nothing to do with chemistry.