mclumber1

5 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

That is $300 billion less than the existing system costs rate-payers, however. So even a conservative think tank admits that single-payer is cheaper.

 

What would you define as over-utilization? People going to their doctor when they have the flu?

I would consider that over utilization unless you were old or immunocompromised.

1 minute ago, GeneticBlueprint said:

 

Wasn't that basically the ACA?

ACA still used private insurance as an intermediary.  I think mass was advocating for government insurance.

Doesn't Bernie's plan cover everything including dental and vision?  If so, that's dumb.  Just include actual healthcare.  Leave the periphery services like dental and vision to the private market and insurance. 

The UK can join a different union I suppose.  They even speak the same language.

38 minutes ago, Jason said:

@mclumber1 SHOCKING!

 

 

Eh.  Kavanaugh hits all the major high points as a conservative nominee.  I never expected Paul to vote no when the GOP majority is so slim.  

1 hour ago, Jason said:

 

Isn't any fiber optic cable going to melt in wildfires?

Buried lines should be safe from something like that.

2 hours ago, Littleronin said:

Second year in a row that wildfires here have melted communication lines to our town. 

Shouldn't buy plastic comm lines it sounds like.

1 minute ago, SaysWho? said:

 

That's what I assumed the "long game" was: getting a majority to block potential openings in 2019/2020, along with a host of judges in the lower courts, similar to what Republicans did to Obama those last two years of his presidency.

Yeah, there is no "short game" for the Democrats, except wasted energy and wasted political capital, in my opinion.

Democrats can't do anything about the Supreme Court right now, and unless they get the majority in the Senate come election time, they won't be able to do anything until at least 2020.  

Nuclear power is the way to go.  Combined with solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal, we could completely eliminate fossil fuel use in the lower 48, maybe even Hawaii.  Alaska would be trickier though.

It doesn't matter.  Canadians are just the Queen's subjects.  

2 hours ago, Jason said:

 

New boards new rules I say.

Badcopnodonut

6 minutes ago, osxmatt said:

This is what the founders had in mind when they put quill to parchment in 1789.

 

 

And pornhub

I'm surprised he admits it was him on the tape!

17 minutes ago, Slug said:

I'm hoping this stands, because it will affect NJ.  Frankly I've never understood how that restriction flew in the first place.  It doesn't make sense.

It won't directly affect NJ, as this ruling only affects the ninth circuit, which is mostly the West Coast states plus Hawaii and Alaska.  If the case makes it to the Supreme Court and they agree it's a violation, then yes, it would affect NJ.

It will be interesting to see how California handles this ruling as they are in the same jurisdiction of this circuit court.

Quote

A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Tuesday found that a Hawaii gun regulation that strictly limits permits to openly carry handguns violates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

 

Citing heavily from the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision, which struck down handgun restrictions in Washington, D.C., Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain wrote the Hawaii law, which restricts open carry to people whose jobs entail “protecting life or property,” would by necessity limit open carry permits to “a small and insulated subset of law-abiding citizens.”

 

“Just as the Second Amendment does not protect a right to bear arms only in connection with a militia, it surely does not protect a right to bear arms only as a security guard,” wrote O’Scannlain, who was joined in his opinion by Judge Sandra Ikuta.

 

In his dissent, Judge Richard Clifton, who sits in Honolulu, wrote that the majority opinion ran counter to the court’s en banc decision in Peruta v. San Diego, which found California’s restrictions on carrying concealed firearms was constitutional. O’Scannlain, it’s worth noting, wrote the panel opinion that was reversed en banc in the Peruta case.

 

The majority, Clifton wrote, “disregarded the fact that states and territories in a variety of regions have long allowed for extensive regulations of and limitations on the public carry of firearms.”

 

D. Kaena Horowitz, deputy corporation counsel for the County of Hawaii, said the county is considering its options, including whether to seek en banc review.

 

“The Young decision is unfortunate as it invalidates Hawaii law designed to protect the safety and well-being of the people of Hawaii,” Horowitz said. “Carrying firearms in public clearly poses a significant danger to the safety of our community and greatly increases the risk that police officers confront.”

 

At oral argument before the Ninth Circuit panel, San Diego attorney Alan Beck represented Hawaii resident George Young, the plaintiff whom the County of Hawaii twice refused a license to carry a handgun, either concealed or openly. Beck said in an interview Tuesday afternoon that he doubted the Ninth Circuit would reverse Young’s case as it did in Peruta.

 

“If they rule against me in the en banc they have to say that ‘carry’ doesn’t exist outside the home. That would go against every other court in the country,” Beck said. “The Ninth Circuit is going to have a hard time doing that without being heard by the Supreme Court.”

 

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up the Peruta case last year, but Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in dissent of the denial of review with Justice Neil Gorsuch joining.

 

“For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous,” Thomas wrote. “But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a state denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it.”

1 hour ago, Nokra said:

 

From the article: 

 

 

Doesn't seem like there's all that much to see here. The implication of his statement (which of course could be deliberately formulated as to deceptively give this impression) seems to me to be that they haven't had much or any interaction since. Unless it comes out that they were plotting America's downfall in front of 300 guests  , I'm not sure what this should mean other than that they became acquainted. If it comes out that they've had a lot of contact since, that's something. But I'm not sure what to make of this by itself. 

Even spies "work hard, play hard".  They need some time to rest and relax every now and then, I suppose.  

He's right though.  Socialists are pansies.  Socialist = man card revoked. 

4 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

Uh, what did I miss?

Maybe more indictments coming in tomorrow? 

I think Elon should sell his stake in Tesla and concentrate on SpaceX, where he'll have the most positive impact on humanity.  It's probably just a pride thing at this point with Tesla. 

Just now, Jason said:

 

This is probably going to do them in:

 

 

Yeah, I think the victims' families will easily win a lawsuit against the company that operated the duck boats. 

1 hour ago, sblfilms said:

 

It’s definitely a thing and harkens back to segregation when many pools were white only, and blacks were treated violently at the pools that weren’t officially segregated.

 

My Granny still won’t go near a pool.

 

But I’m pretty sure most folks who are proficient in the pool would have had difficulty in a boat capsizing scenario in the middle of a powerful storm.

Back when I went through Navy boot camp in 2003, most of the guys who needed to learn how to swim were black.  There was a very shallow pool next to the real pool for all the guys who didn't know how to swim yet.  

1 minute ago, PaladinSolo said:

That tweet is reeks of desperation, and the weirdest part is i'm sure he didn't write that one, lol.

I'm of the opinion that Team Trump leaked this info as a distraction.  If it was attorney-client privileged material, than only Trump could conceivably release it.  I'm sure him and his lawyers think bringing his various affairs back into focus is better optics than the current Russia stuff.