Search results

Re: Government starting to tell women they don't need breast exams if they're under 5 you know what's incredibly hilarious about this? hayek, in the actual book 'the road to serfdom,' argued IN FAVOR of government-run "socialized" health insurance. read 'em and weep, glibertarians:

stay in SF and take BART to the game. it's super easy and drops you off right at the arena. i've been going to games there that way for years, always rocking my blazers gear, and i've never had any problems. i think the warriors generally have great fans... they'll engage you in some...

oh my god that sentence is depressing. no matter how crap we've been this preseason, we can't deny that we've come a long way...

Despite disagreeing with him on most issues, I actually do like Ron Paul and respect his voters. (But then I'm an unrepentant Nader 2000 voter, so I surely have a soft spot for both principled critics of a corrupt two-party system and, sad to say, hopeless lost causes.) But Ron Paul (like...

hopefully jay rockefeller has more friends in the dem caucus in the senate than max baucus does... because rockefeller is absolutely right on this one. i seriously don't know what the hell baucus is thinking.

interesting... why do you think so? i'd rank the french system number one but we'll never, ever have anything like that. i would tend to think the swiss system or something close to it is the best we could ever hope for. why do you like the germans' scheme so much?

Again, because they suck. If the shoe were on the other foot, the Republicans would have gotten this done. Period. 60 Democratic Senators wield power about as effectively as 35 Republican Senators. It's amazing. The great irony is that the BaucusCare is essentially a moderate Republican...

Because Democrats are absolutely useless. Seriously. I cannot even begin to tell you how much it pains me to have to vote for them... You are 100% correct: there is no excuse, whatsoever, for the Democrats not to pass, on a party-line basis, a good health reform plan. Instead they're...

No, it's showing why it's a complete fallacy to describe the dire budget situation as "Obama's quadrupling of the deficit." ~90% of the deficit problem in Obama's budgets results from "pre-existing conditions" to borrow an unfortunate term from another debate. It's just intellectually...

so we ask again: if these "tea partiers" are so principled, where the hell were they for the last eight years?

no, as i said repeatedly, the premise is that obama has disappointed in many ways -- most of them involving his failure to rollback the executive power grabs of the bush years. i would argue that the "czars" issue is an extremely minor one of those; having a "special advisor on green jobs" is...

the whole thing appears to have been full of really lovely people: http://www.flickr.com/photos/42406957@N04/sets/72157622225596987/show/ classy!

i totally agree that it's an inappropriate use of executive power. but again, it's a continuation of bush administration policy, not something that obama invented out of thin air. who was president when TARP funds were diverted into chrysler and GM, again? hint: it happened in december 2008...

what's new about "czars"? presidents have been using them for ages (since at least andrew jackson, by my count, although he didn't use the term "czar.") the name is stupid/scary, but if obama's use of various policy advisers ("czars") is so terrifying, then why wasn't it equally terrifying...

so his cunning plan to create a plan to replace all private insurance is to (a) launch the health-care debate by taking single-payer completely off the table, and then (b) further weaken his own plan by refusing to offer vehement support the "public option," which is the only element of...

the irony, of course, is that bush *did* dramatically change the political system by vastly increasing the power of the executive branch in ways never imagined in the constitution. so far, to my great disappointment, the obama administration has decided not to reverse many of those dubious...

60 or 70,000 people = 2 million?? awesome!

greg ostertag?!?! really? that dude is still playing basketball? how old is he?

For what it's worth, the difference between the two numbers is a guess at the number of people who *could* get health insurance if they wanted it but choose not to do so. There are 47 million uninsured. Over 30 million of those are unable to get insurance due to cost, pre-existing conditions...

Kaman