Sony boosts Alpha range with DSLR-A450: Digital Photography Review
Sony boosts Alpha range with DSLR-A450: Sony has introduced another sub-$1000 DSLR, the A450. The Sony Alpha 450 slots in below the A500, offering the same 14.2 megapixel CMOS sensor as the more expensive A550 but ...
40 million DS units sold in Europe // News
Nintendo has announced that the DS family of consoles has sold over 40 million units in Europe The numbers come after la...
Source: Courthouse Killer Angry Over Social Security - Las Vegas ...
LAS VEGAS -- The man who opened fire at the federal courthouse in downtown Las Vegas was upset about cuts to his Social Security benefits, officials said Monday. Monday, January 4, 2010.
"By
This
But
"I
In
The time scale for evolution, in the external transmission period, has collapsed to about 50 years, or less. Meanwhile,
But
If
Casey Kazan Related Galaxy posts: The 10,000 Year Explosion: Has Human Civilization Turbo Charged Evolution? Immense Journey Source: http://www.rationalvedanta.net/node/131
contrast," Hawking says, "there are about 50,000 new books published in
the English language each year, containing of the order of a hundred
billion bits of information. Of course, the great majority of this
information is garbage, and no use to any form of life. But, even so,
the rate at which useful information can be added is millions, if not
billions, higher than with DNA."
means Hawking says that we have entered a new phase of evolution. "At
first, evolution proceeded by natural selection, from random mutations.
This Darwinian phase, lasted about three and a half billion years, and
produced us, beings who developed language, to exchange information."
what distinguishes us from our cave man ancestors is the knowledge that
we have accumulated over the last ten thousand years, and particularly,
Hawking points out, over the last three hundred.
think it is legitimate to take a broader view, and include externally
transmitted information, as well as DNA, in the evolution of the human
race," Hawking said.
the last ten thousand years the human species has been in what Hawking
calls, "an external transmission phase," where the internal record of
information, handed down to succeeding generations in DNA, has not
changed significantly. "But the external record, in books, and other
long lasting forms of storage," Hawking says, "has grown enormously.
Some people would use the term, evolution, only for the internally
transmitted genetic material, and would object to it being applied to
information handed down externally. But I think that is too narrow a
view. We are more than just our genes."
Hawking observes, our human brains "with which we process this
information have evolved only on the Darwinian time scale, of hundreds
of thousands of years. This is beginning to cause problems. In the 18th
century, there was said to be a man who had read every book written.
But nowadays, if you read one book a day, it would take you about
15,000 years to read through the books in a national Library. By which
time, many more books would have been written."
we are now entering a new phase, of what Hawking calls "self designed
evolution," in which we will be able to change and improve our DNA. "At
first," he continues "these changes will be confined to the repair of
genetic defects, like cystic fibrosis, and muscular dystrophy. These
are controlled by single genes, and so are fairly easy to identify, and
correct. Other qualities, such as intelligence, are probably controlled
by a large number of genes. It will be much more difficult to find
them, and work out the relations between them. Nevertheless, I am sure
that during the next century, people will discover how to modify both
intelligence, and instincts like aggression."
the human race manages to redesign itself, to reduce or eliminate the
risk of self-destruction, we will probably reach out to the stars and
colonize other planets. But this will be done, Hawking believes, with
intelligent machines based on mechanical and electronic components,
rather than macromolecules, which could eventually replace DNA based
life, just as DNA may have replaced an earlier form of life.
Homo Sapiens -The "Time Travelers" -A Galaxy Classic
“Hyper-Speed” Evolution Discovered
Bringing Ancient Human Viruses Back to Life: A Jurassic Park or Salvation?
PLANETARY SOCIETY PRESS RELEASE
Please join us to celebrate the achievements of two renowned heroes of space exploration, physicist Stephen Hawking and Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin, at a luncheon in Pasadena, California on January 23, 2010.
The Planetary Society will present the Cosmos Award for Outstanding Public Presentation of Science to Dr. Hawking, author of “A Brief History of Time” and host of the television series “Stephen Hawking’s Universe.”
Carl Sagan’s landmark television series, “Cosmos,” fueled the imaginations of millions of viewers around the world. To honor other innovators who present science in an entertaining and enthralling way, the Society created the Cosmos Award. Through his books, television series and public lectures, Dr. Hawking has engaged the public for over 20 years in some of the most profound questions of our existence – from the origins of the universe to the nature of black holes.
We will also be marking a milestone for Dr. Aldrin – his 80th birthday. Dr. Aldrin has steadfastly supported The Planetary Society as both a friend and a member of our Advisory Council, and throwing a birthday party is a great way for you and I to thank him for his tremendous impact on spaceflight and our shared history.
Join Stephen Hawking, Buzz Aldrin and several members of The Planetary Society’s Board of Directors for this once-in-a-lifetime celebration.
DATE: Saturday, January 23, 2010
TIME: 12:00 – 2:00 PM
PLACE: The Langham Huntington Hotel Ballroom
1401 South Oak Knoll Avenue, Pasadena CA
For questions about the event, please contact Susan Lendroth at 626-793-5100 ext 237.
Tickets:
Planetary Society Members:
$95 for a single guest
$175 per couple
Non-members:
$175 each
Similar Posts:
- Stephen Hawking Pens a Children’s Book
- Britain’s Channel 4 Airing Series on Stephen Hawking
- Stephen Hawking to Send DNA into Space on Garriott Flight
- Planetary Society to Conduct Public Meetings on Space Exploration
- Stephen Hawking Hospitalized, “Very Ill”
"By contrast," Hawking says, "there are about 50,000 new books published in the English language each year, containing of the order of a hundred billion bits of information. Of course, the great majority of this information is garbage, and no use to any form of life. But, even so, the rate at which useful information can be added is millions, if not billions, higher than with DNA." This means Hawking says that we have entered a new phase of evolution. "At first, evolution proceeded by natural selection, from random mutations. This Darwinian phase, lasted about three and a half billion years, and produced us, beings who developed language, to exchange information." But what distinguishes us from our cave man ancestors is the knowledge that we have accumulated over the last ten thousand years, and particularly, Hawking points out, over the last three hundred. "I think it is legitimate to take a broader view, and include externally transmitted information, as well as DNA, in the evolution of the human race," Hawking said. In the last ten thousand years the human species has been in what Hawking calls, "an external transmission phase," where the internal record of information, handed down to succeeding generations in DNA, has not changed significantly. "But the external record, in books, and other long lasting forms of storage," Hawking says, "has grown enormously. Some people would use the term, evolution, only for the internally transmitted genetic material, and would object to it being applied to information handed down externally. But I think that is too narrow a view. We are more than just our genes." The time scale for evolution, in the external transmission period, has collapsed to about 50 years, or less. But we are now entering a new phase, of what Hawking calls "self designed evolution," in which we will be able to change and improve our DNA. "At first," he continues "these changes will be confined to the repair of genetic defects, like cystic fibrosis, and muscular dystrophy. These are controlled by single genes, and so are fairly easy to identify, and correct. Other qualities, such as intelligence, are probably controlled by a large number of genes. It will be much more difficult to find them, and work out the relations between them. Nevertheless, I am sure that during the next century, people will discover how to modify both intelligence, and instincts like aggression." If the human race manages to redesign itself, to reduce or eliminate the risk of self-destruction, we will probably reach out to the stars and colonize other planets. But this will be done, Hawking believes, with intelligent machines based on mechanical and electronic components, rather than macromolecules, which could eventually replace DNA based life, just as DNA may have replaced an earlier form of life.
Liam |
December 7th, 2009 at 03:57 pm
The House should not back away from the PO. It is the most popular part of Health Care Reform, and all the House members have to run for reelection, starting in just about one month from now.
There are far less Democratic Senators who have to run in 2010, so there is no reason for all the Democrats in the House, to upset their base, just to appease a small handful of Bluedog Senators.
Why is the Senate supposed to get what they want, and not the house, in a reconciliation process? Then it would not be a reconciliation process, but just letting the Senate dictate to The House Of Representatives. That would be a travesty, an make the congress members look like supplicants to the Senate..
lfo |
December 7th, 2009 at 03:58 pm
well Greg I think that by now the Reps are the ones setting themselves up for a waterloo. So you rtake is right. And what is this unAmerican fixation with Napoleonic defeats?
Andy |
December 7th, 2009 at 03:59 pm
Let’s say PO is actually off the table.
If we lower the medicare eligibility age and open access to the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan, along with the other reforms everyone has agreed on then what issues are left out? Competition for the insurance companies and using government money to pay for abortions, right?
Someone needs to find out what’s being done on the competition front and the abortion issue. Otherwise I don’t see the down side. What am I missing?
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 03:59 pm
“And what is this unAmerican fixation with Napoleonic defeats?”
LOL!
Vraimant!
mike from Arlington |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:00 pm
I’d like to see a score of the Senate bill without the PO.
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:03 pm
“Someone needs to find out what’s being done on the competition front and the abortion issue. Otherwise I don’t see the down side. What am I missing?”
I see it pretty much the way you do.
Liam |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:03 pm
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MED_HEALTHBEAT_HOSPITAL_RETURNS?SITE=CACRU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
“Talk about unnecessary misery: One in five Medicare patients winds up back in the hospital within a month – even worse, one in four patients with heart failure.
A major push is under way around the country to cut rehospitalizations, in part by arming patients with simple steps to keep their recovery on track – like getting past harried receptionists for quicker follow-up doctor visits, and reducing medication confusion.
Less than a year into a Medicare-sponsored “Care Transitions” project in 14 states, participating hospitals already are seeing readmissions start to inch down, says Dr. Barry Straube, chief medical officer of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
One of those projects, in Baton Rouge, La., sends health coaches to five area hospitals to guide high-risk patients through discharge and check how they’re faring through that critical first month. Of the first 145 patients coached so far, only seven had to be rehospitalized.”
lfo |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:04 pm
not to get repetitive but follow Ezra he has a few good posts on what would happen or not once this compromise happens. And also what moving parts to look for.
Tena–I wonder why they do not use the alamo? too close to the bone?
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:05 pm
I really like the idea of lowering the Medicare age. I already said that I think that makes is almost impossible for someone like Rick Perry or Fluffy Hutchison to opt out. They don’t want to be seen opting out of Medicare.
Liam |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:05 pm
Of course these sort of improvements are going to greatly interfere with the vital work of Death Panels.
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:06 pm
“too close to the bone?”
Too sacred – there was only one black man at the Alamo and he didn’t fight – he was a slave.
jzap |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:06 pm
It’s subversion coming from the huge foreign influence permeating our so-called own MSM. I mean, who better to push another up-is-down meme than the Australians?
sbj |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:07 pm
“Beyond the behind-the-scenes skirmishing, though, lurks a larger question: Once the Senate reaches a compromise, can the House do anything to have an impact on it in conference negotiations over the final bill? Or will House Dems more or less have to go along with the Senate version?”
Best idea would be for the House to simply accept the Senate bill as written – no amendments – and take a quick up or down vote (simple majority). Avoid conference altogether and get the thing passed before Christmas.
sbj |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:09 pm
“So even if a pure public option is sacrificed, it could mean no Waterloo for reform overall — or for Obama and Dems.”
Greg – are you really going to try and frame the loss of the PO as a victory for Dems?
Travis |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:10 pm
“GOP aides can chortle, but the fact remains that Dems are all still at the table, still negotiating a compromise, and still moving towards creating an overall bill that 60 Senators can support. So even if a pure public option is sacrificed, it could mean no Waterloo for reform overall — or for Obama and Dems.”
I dunno. Progressives have deemed anything short of a “strong public option” (which means different things to different people) to be “not REAL reform.”
So, in essence, the left has made the public option its Waterloo. Anything short of a “strong public option” may overshadow the other positive aspects of the bill and cause many progressives to attack, rather than hail, the passage of historic legislation that would, even without the public option, significantly reform the healthcare system.
Additionally, when people on the left are saying that it’s better to kill the bill over the public option than to pass legislation now (even without that “strong public option”) and amend it later, I think this is could get pretty ugly.
Finally, given that progressive blogs and websites have generally been more inclined to highlight and assail negative political developments than to hail positive ones, I no longer anticipate that the passage of healthcare reform will be much of a political boon to Democrats, even it is ultimately and actually a boon (i.e., real reform) for people who need it.
rukidding |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:11 pm
My wife just turned 63 and I’ll be 62 this month…yes she robbed the cradle and I never let her forget it.
Point is we are getting close to single payer regardless of what happens to HCR. Still I don’t wish to be perceived as a member of the Grand Ole Party which basically believes..”I got mine screw you”.
Having said all of that I would trade the P.O. for moving the Medicare eligibility up to 55 in a heartbeat!!! The P.O. will be limited in scale while moving an entire decade of population into single payer would be a HUGE accomplishment.
I find it difficult to believe this could actually happen but then again it does make sense. Illness gets increasingly more prevalent after 55 and so the insurance companies might not mind shedding a higher risk group. Once we get private insurance down to the even healthier part of our population there is a chance…I admit remote…that competition would take a small hold and some company would enjoy cherry picking those younger healthier folks. It also has the added advantage of not totally eliminating the insurers and their investments overnight.
And so I’d gladly trade the P.O. for Medicare @ 55…as long as we keep the restraints on pre existing conditions and recission.
sbj |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:11 pm
“If we lower the medicare eligibility age and open access to the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan…I don’t see the down side. What am I missing?”
The price tag?
Liam |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:14 pm
So, how would the Medicare for people age 55 etc, be funded?
News Reference |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:15 pm
a compromise of a compromise of a compromise of a…
I can’t recall anyone on the left suggesting we adopt Britain’s popular government healthcare. I’ve personally seen Britain’s national healthcare in action and it was responsive, efficient, and effective.
In America we have a similarly responsive, efficient, and effective government run healthcare plan (caveat: when it’s run by Democratic leaders): The VA.
Under Democratic President Clinton, the VA become extremely effective and cost-efficient.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_29/b3993061.htm
Under Republicans we got the Walter Reed Hospital scandal.
The popular Canadian system of “single payer” was never even given a seat at the table.
And the ‘public option’ has been so watered down that it’s largely lost it’s efficacy (which was right winger’s objective).
I still have “hope”, but it’s clear that with allies like the predatory Aetna insurance company tool Joe Lie berman it’s going to be a tight squeeze.
For those on ‘the left’ that are discouraged: Focus on primarying right wing Dems, defeating Republicans, and retaining Democratic majorities.
Liam |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:17 pm
A Question:
With Regards to covering abortions:
Does the health Care coverage of Senators and Congress members cover Abortions for their families, and or Mistresses?
mike from Arlington |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:17 pm
Oh my rukidding. I feel shameful for continuing the tea-bagging jokes in the presence of someone who is my elder.
*blush*
And wow. I think I agree with sbj.
“Best idea would be for the House to simply accept the Senate bill as written – no amendments – and take a quick up or down vote (simple majority). Avoid conference altogether and get the thing passed before Christmas.”
sbj |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:18 pm
@reefer: Walter Reed Army Medical Center is run by the Army, not the VA.
sbj |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:19 pm
“Does the health Care coverage of Senators and Congress members cover Abortions for their families, and or Mistresses?”
No.
Liam |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:23 pm
Well that would explain why no one ever sees their unwed daughters or mistresses getting pregnant. They all just practice sexual abstinence, and take occasional trips to Zurich, just to ski, and sweat off those little fatty belly paunches that they have added on.
lfo |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:23 pm
jzap & tena–Lol. But I really wonder why they keep using it, as if I don’t know, the whole thing isn’t french. Like arugula and mustard.
News Reference |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:27 pm
The Republican’s Walter Reed Army Medical Center scandal was part of a long pattern of Republican neglect of American troops.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701172.html
Republican neglect of American troops is the flip-side of Republican corporatism handing no-bid contracts to war-profiteers.
lmsinca |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:27 pm
Looks like everyone here suddenly thinks the PO is expendable. Wow. Good luck with the House.
mike from Arlington |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:28 pm
Wow, via Ben Smith…
With the Senate shifting sharply away from a “pure public option,” an insurance industry insider who has been deeply involved in the health care fight emails to declare victory.
“We WIN,” the insider writes. “Administered by private insurance companies. No government funding. No government insurance competitor.”
roxsteady |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:29 pm
Is he still alive? Pitty!
mike from Arlington |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:29 pm
This must be a great victory for the teabaggers and their corporate controlled oligarchy.
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:29 pm
“But I really wonder why they keep using it,”
Well the French were defeated, which suits the ratwing.
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:31 pm
Lowering the age of Medicare is not complicated, like the other things they’ve devised to get around giving us what we want. IT doesn’t address the problem of people younger than 55. But wouldn’t it be easier in the long run to just keep lowering the age over time rather than trying to continually amend some complicated PO amendment in the bill to make it better?
lfo |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:31 pm
I am going to wait to see what actually comes out fo the senate to declare anything dead, or anyone a winner. didn’t the insurance companies declare victory in august?
lmsinca |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:33 pm
Mike from A
I guess my husband was right to keep his Aetna stock.
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:33 pm
lfo – me too.
and yes they did and they’ve been doing that all along.
mike from Arlington |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:35 pm
yes, lmsinca. 3.14% gains today alone.
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=AET#chart3:symbol=aet;range=3m;indicator=ke_it+volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined
News Reference |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:37 pm
corrected:
“This must be a great victory for the teabaggers and their“ masters: Corporate oligarchs.
News Reference |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:39 pm
And again:
Under Democratic President Clinton’s leadership the VA became an extremely effective, life-saving, cost-efficient government run healthcare provider.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_29/b3993061.htm
And again:
Under Republicans we got the Walter Reed Hospital scandal where wounded American troops were neglected.
jzap |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:39 pm
I find this surprisingly palatable.
Any replacement for the PO would have to be national in scope to be effective. I don’t even care if you call it a foxtrotting co-op, so long as it’s not a state-by-state quilt.
Expand existing administrative infrastructure instead of inventing a brand-new one or two. Medicare seems to be working OK operationally, though Dubya’s unfunded donut-hole mandate is a fiscal albatross.
lfo |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:41 pm
Tena–I don’t know there is always a rush to conclude things are done when we are still in the middle of the road to it. I will judge on the end result not negotiations. Remember just 1 month ago no one thought a PO would be in the Senate Bill AT ALL..
Bernie Latham |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:44 pm
travis’ post above seems pretty rational to me. There really are a couple of battles going on, the substantive negotiations/compromises with all attendant blather and the overall PR battle to coming from the Republicans to paint anything and everything Obama does as some species of failure versus Dem efforts to tell a different story.
And the one thing we know with utter certainty is that, quite regardless of what this final bill looks like when passed, the Republicans will declare it an Obama failure.
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:44 pm
“so long as it’s not a state-by-state quilt.”
Thanks for that, cause that is exactly the way I feel. I am not happy about the state opt-out plan because if this is really a national problem – even a national moral imperative- letting states opt out sort of belies the national part of that. It definitely throws us red state Democrats to the lions. In short, it seems way less fair to me.
And I don’t think states will opt out of Medicare.
Liam |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:45 pm
They better not pay for abortions for those people over 55 or I will be really nonplussed, and chagrined with a lemon twist.
Liam |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:46 pm
Fox News Anchor Asks if Nelson Amendment Will Lead to More ‘Low-Income Babies’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBMB9-R6wD8&feature=player_embedded
lmsinca |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:47 pm
“Someone needs to find out what’s being done on the competition front and the abortion issue. Otherwise I don’t see the down side. What am I missing?”
That’s the point Andy, there will be no competition. The insurance industry will reap the rewards of all those new customers and still have a monopoly. The compromise of using the OPM is nothing, just an exchange, which we were already getting and lowering the Medicare age is “throwing a bone to progressives”.
Everyone here seems pretty willing to compromise though so it probably won’t be that hard of a sell. I’d prefer to be treated as an adult and not just have my ideas traded away, but like I’ve said before it is what it is. The Lieberman’s of the world seem to be able to get their way an awful lot, all he had to do was threaten the filibuster, and nobody called him on it.
It’s not over yet I know, but we’re getting closer to vote counting time so we all knew there would be some kind of compromise and I think the rumors are testing the waters. From the comments here, I guess it’ll work.
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:47 pm
” and the overall PR battle to coming from the Republicans to paint anything and everything Obama does as some species of failure versus Dem efforts to tell a different story.
And the one thing we know with utter certainty is that, quite regardless of what this final bill looks like when passed, the Republicans will declare it an Obama failure.”
You and Travis are completely correct about that. And I predict they will get help in that from some on the left, no matter what we end up with.
Bernie Latham |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:51 pm
Off topic but wanted to get this in today (busy). From Hitchens on Sarah Palin. Attend particularly to the information on Fred Malek:
http://www.slate.com/id/2237638/pagenum/all/#p2
Liam |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:55 pm
Bernie,
Well that is perfectly understandable. Quitter Palin would have stayed in College in Hawaii if it turned out that the place was not populated by Hawaiians. How was the poor woman supposed to have known, before she arrived in Hawaii, that the place was filled with Hawaiians!
MB |
December 7th, 2009 at 04:59 pm
Let the GOP chortle. From what I read in detailed analysis of the Senate bill by CBO, MIT, and Ron Brownstein, there is plenty of good stuff in the bill even without the PO. The health care problem has been ignored for so long that this bill is a huge improvement over status quo. And that is why GOP is howling so much. They know this is going to work and will be popular.
The PO in its current form is available to a small slice of the population. Without the Wyden amendment (which would open it to everyone) it is hard to see it being very effective. Back in late summer / early fall, I would not have bet on Harry Reid putting PO in the bill to be introduced in the Senate. Now if it passes with PO (highly unlikely), it will be okay. If it gets taken out, it will be used to get something else.
A comibination of lowering medicare and opening Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan will be better than a PO, I think. Btw, Obama hinted at FEHBP early in the process. (”Obama team looks to federal employee health program as a model” http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0309/031609ar2.htm)
And I can see now why, even though he supported PO, he never said it is a must have.
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:01 pm
Bernie = how did I put it last week? She manages to be both ridiculous and dangerous and the same time – which isn’t easy to do. But she does that well.
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:01 pm
MB –
Great comment.
lfo |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:11 pm
yes MB, I second Tena: very good comment.
Not a member of this echochamber |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:11 pm
I love the moving of the goal posts here. We have been told repeatedly by those on the left that the main reason Senators should vote for this bill is because the public option is so unbelievably popular. What will you say if the public option is stripped?
Furthermore, progressives have been indicating all along that the strong public option is an absolute must. How does its removal and subsequent passage of this bill, if that happens, become a disaster for the Republicans. You will dispirit a large portion of the Democratic base and you will only further energize the Republicans.
Not a member of this echochamber |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:13 pm
“And that is why GOP is howling so much. They know this is going to work and will be popular.”
No, they are howling because this is a terrible bill opposed by their constituents, and most Americans for that matter.
http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/healthplan.php
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:14 pm
“Furthermore, progressives have been indicating all along that the strong public option is an absolute must. How does its removal and subsequent passage of this bill, if that happens, become a disaster for the Republicans. You will dispirit a large portion of the Democratic base and you will only further energize the Republicans.”
A. When you are fighting for something, you tend to insist that it’s very important, perhaps more important than it really is;
B. You don’t always expect to get everything you are insisting is a must, even when you insist it is;
C. Republicans don’t want any health care reform at all. Period. End of story. So are you going to tell me that passing Health Care Reform is a victory for the GOP?
O pull the other one, it has bells on.
MB |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:15 pm
Thanks, Tena. I think I need to apologize to “real amurikans” for mentioning MIT study in my comment… MIT is nothing but home to “librul eleets” They can’t know what is good for amerika
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:16 pm
Yeah, that’s what you are doing here – nonmember – you are so sure it spells DOOM for us.
That’s because this is GREAT
NEWS
FOR
JOHN MCCAIN
lfo |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:19 pm
Well Tena–Everything is always good news for Republicans! Even when they are left behind making arguments from the last century.
rukidding |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:20 pm
“But wouldn’t it be easier in the long run to just keep lowering the age over time rather than trying to continually amend some complicated PO amendment in the bill to make it better?”
That’s exactly what I think Tena. If Obama can get Medicare lowered to 55 AND get rid of pre existing condition and recission rationing…he will have accomplished something amazing and incredibly significant.
As someone pointed out the infrastructure for Medicare is already in place and an incremental change like this shouldn’t be that difficult to achieve in a relatively short time…like 1/1/2011 not 2012 or 13 or 14 or whatever they’ve been tossing around.
How do we pay for it? SBJ you can bite me you heartless irrational nincompoop. Bring the boys and girls home from the military adventures as we can EASILY pay for it.
We lost less than 4,000 on 9/11 and yet we lose over 40,000 every year due to our horrible health care system. SBJ have you ever heard of priorities?
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:22 pm
“If Obama can get Medicare lowered to 55 AND get rid of pre existing condition and recission rationing…he will have accomplished something amazing and incredibly significant.”
O word straight up.
on the whole comment.
News Reference |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:24 pm
Fixed l!nk:
“Obama team looks to federal employee health program as a model” -By Alyssa Rosenberg, March 16, 2009
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0309/031609ar2.htm
sbj |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:25 pm
“We have been told repeatedly by those on the left that the main reason Senators should vote for this bill is because the public option is so unbelievably popular.”
Funny, isn’t it? In an earlier Lieberman thread there were howls of indignation that he would vote against a PO because his constituents were in favor of it.
It’s now apparent that in many many states the majority does not support the health care reform proposals. So when Dem Senators and Reps vote FOR the House and Senate bills will there be howls of indignation?
I didn’t think so. Foolish consistency, hobgoblins, and all that ****…
sbj |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:28 pm
“How do we pay for it? SBJ you can bite me you heartless irrational nincompoop. Bring the boys and girls home from the military adventures as we can EASILY pay for it.”
Perhaps, then, you should be inviting President Obama to “bite” you?
Aren’t we all agreed that Medicare is in big trouble? So we’re going to solve our health care crisis by adding millions more to it? I would really love to hear the details…
MB |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:28 pm
@Not a member of this echochamber
If it is such a bad bill, don’t you think GOP would not use procedural tactics to not even allow votes and introduce gimmicky amendments. Let the democrats pass this crappy bill and then win back the House and pick up senate seats in 2010.
Btw, something more for GOP to howl about: Obama To Propose New Jobs Program:In a speech tomorrow, CNN reports that President Obama will propose using $200 billion from TARP for “funding projects to build bridges and roads, weatherize homes, and provide other assistance for small businesses as well as the unemployed.”
Boehner is already crying..
News Reference |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:31 pm
I’d prefer “Medicare for All”.
The problems:
Republicans are tools of international corporations with no loyalty to Americans or America. Republicans choose corporate profits over the lives of the 44,000 Americans who die each year because of lack of healthcare.
And the thin Democratic majority is hampered by the Republican Wing of the Democratic Party.
Again, the best thing that those on the left who want more can do is: Primary right wing Dems, defeat Republicans, and retain Democratic majorities.
http://www.actblue.com
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:32 pm
” CNN reports that President Obama will propose using $200 billion from TARP for “funding projects to build bridges and roads, weatherize homes, and provide other assistance for small businesses as well as the unemployed.”
”
WoooHooooooooooooooo!
This is what I’m talking about – public works project; fix the country – it needs a lot of fixing!
lfo |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:35 pm
My understanding is that all the elements that are needed for insurance reform (end of recision, upping rates, pre existing conditions)is on the bill so that coupled with the lowering of age for medicare is big news and just ads to the effectiveness of HCR.
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:35 pm
“I’d prefer “Medicare for All”.”
So would I and I think this is a better, faster, easier route to get us there.
sbj |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:36 pm
“something more for GOP to howl about: Obama To Propose New Jobs Program”
I’m not a member of the GOP but I’ll howl about it! The stimulus was ALREADY supposed to fund “projects to build bridges and roads, weatherize homes.” What the hell was all of that money for – we need another $200 billion to do the same damn thing? What’s that the youngsters say? Epic fail?
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:37 pm
sbj – It’s fixed rather simply – we go through this, you and I, how many times a day? – by raising the tax rates on the top income earners back up to where they were when Clinton was president.
You know: that Golden Age of peace and prosperity?
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:39 pm
“What the hell was all of that money for – we need another $200 billion to do the same damn thing? What’s that the youngsters say? Epic fail?”
Tell that to the several thousand people who worked on the big road project in northern New Mexico, that was a project of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
And by all means – oppose a Jobs Program. Please do – you and the rest of the right.
sbj |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:44 pm
“It’s fixed rather simply – we go through this, you and I, how many times a day? – by raising the tax rates on the top income earners back up to where they were when Clinton was president.”
So why hasn’t your party done that, tena?
Medicare is NOT fixed rather simply through increased taxes and you’re probably the only person I’ve ever seen claim such a thing. If that’s all it takes why are the Dems proposing $500 billion in cuts? If that’ll fix it do we raise rates AGAIN when we add millions more with this new eligibility proposal? C’mon now!
“Tell that to the several thousand people who worked on the big road project in northern New Mexico”
Well I guess, then, that the first stimulus worked out swimmingly – so why another one? Another one that does the same stuff as the first?
News Reference |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:46 pm
I’d really love to see that money invested in renewable domestic energy producers like wind farms and solar panels.
Let’s stop paying oil dictators that hate trillions in energy fees every decade.
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:46 pm
“They better not pay for abortions for those people over 55 or I will be really nonplussed, and chagrined with a lemon twist.”
You know, this solution neatly bypasses that argument for now.
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:49 pm
sbj – There’s obviously a hell of a lot more work out there to be done than one highway project in northern New Mexico, or indeed, 15 highway projects in half the states in the country.
As I noted the other day – we are way understaffed in every single national park and national forest in this country. Woefully understaffed – to a point where it becomes actually very detrimental to trying to keep those places the way they are supposed to be.
There are lots of roads and bridges in the US.
And you’re being a pill and you sound like a GOP Refusenik.
So like I said =- please please please oppose a Job’s Program. Do it loudly. Do it Publicly. Hold Tea Bagging Rallies on it.
Greg Sargent |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:50 pm
Happy hour roundup posted:
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/climate-change/happy-hour-roundup-fox-news-republicans/
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:50 pm
I want your just folks grass roots out there saying: We don’t need no steenking government jobs!
News Reference |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:53 pm
Medicare would absolutely be “fixed rather simply through increased taxes”.
Only right wing liars say otherwise. Right winger “sbj” has even admitted that they tell lies for money, just today “sbj” asked: “How much would YOU be willing to pay for my lies?”
Ultra-rich right wing puppetmaster’s figure it’s cheaper to pay right wingers like “sbj” to lie than it is to support America by paying their fair share in taxes.
Scott C. |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:54 pm
News:
I’d prefer medicare for all.
Or, in other words, you’d prefer to live in a fantasy world where everyone gets something for nothing.
If medical care of comparable quality and quantity as that available today can be made available to more people at a cheaper cost than that available today, why don’t you radical lefties start providing it rather than trying to get the government to do it for you? Are you guys simply so preternaturally dictatorial and opposed to freedom that you prefer government force to mutually acceptable exchange?
Scott C. |
December 7th, 2009 at 05:57 pm
News:
…fair share in taxes.
Define fair.
Tena |
December 7th, 2009 at 06:06 pm
“Or, in other words, you’d prefer to live in a fantasy world where everyone gets something for nothing. ”
No. Number 1 – my taxes would pay for this, among other people’s.
And Number 2 – if Canada, Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Australia found ways to pay for it, I think we can.
News Reference |
December 7th, 2009 at 07:19 pm
Right wing “voodoo economics” of Hollywood entertainer Ronald Reagan explained in a nutshell: “where everyone gets something for nothing.”
It’s the right wing’s “Two Santa Clause Theory” of governance: Spend, spend, spend, then lower taxes, then… Magic. Except that the magic never happens for 90% of Americans because they got screwed while only the top 10% (the true Republican base) took all the profits.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/01/26-0
And again:
Hollywood entertainer Ronald Reagan increased government size, Republican Reagan INCREASED government spending, and even while Republican Reagan RAISED taxes on working Americans, Republican Reagan’s giant gifts to the ultra-wealthy managed to increase the US debt by 260%.
Weirdly, the left wing are the true fiscal ‘conservatives’. History shows that the left-wing have consistently paid down the gross federal debt as a percentage of gross domestic debt.
For the last 29 years:
REPUBLICANS INCREASED THE US DEBT.
Hollywood con man Reagan increased the US debt by 260%.
Republicans Reagan and Bush 1 increased the US debt by 400%.
Republican Bush 2 more than DOUBLED the US debt. And nobody yet knows how much Republican Bush’s cronies at the Fed funneled out the back door to his corporate buddies.
News Reference |
December 7th, 2009 at 07:20 pm
“omparable quality and quantity [of healthcare] as that available today can be made available to more people at a cheaper cost than that available today” by simply eliminating the corporate leaches sucking at the lifeblood of Americans.
The government healthcare plans provided by every other industrialized country on earth have better health outcomes than America does and they do it for a cheaper cost.
Foreign countries citizens receiving government run healthcare live longer than Americans and their citizens infant mortality rates are lower than Amrericans and it’s done for significantly cheaper than the corporate-medical-industry-profiteers that the right wing corporatists are protecting.
sbj |
December 7th, 2009 at 07:32 pm
Yes indeed – the cost of health care is cheaper in other countries – and neither of the proposals does anything to impact the cost of health care. (You know better than to repeat misleading infant mortality rates drivel.)
News Reference |
December 7th, 2009 at 07:44 pm
If right winger “sbj” had a conscience he wouldn’t lie about factual truths:
America has a MUCH higher infant mortality rate than dozens of other countries.
Most of the countries that have LOWER infant mortality rates have some kind of socialized medicine.
That FACT was consistently reported under Republican President Bush in the CIA World Factbooks published while Republican Bush was President.
Go look up the Factbooks during Republican Bush’s Presidency:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/download/
The US has had a worse infant mortality rate than dozens of other countries for years.
sbj |
December 7th, 2009 at 09:06 pm
@reefer: You obviously don’t understand the issues surrounding those self-reported figures.
Not to mention you fail to address my point about the COST of health care.
News Reference |
December 7th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Again, not only do other countries have lower infant mortality rates than the US, those countries also have longer life-spans than US, AND those socialist-health care using countries accomplish superior health-outcomes at a lower cost than our private predatory corporate-medical system.
Those are the FACTS.
sbj |
December 7th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
And you are obviously unaware of the many reasons life expectancy might be longer in countries with a culture different than our own here in the US.
sbj |
December 7th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Do you understand the difference between cost and price?
News Reference |
December 8th, 2009 at 12:41 am
Do you understand the concept of Return On Investment?
For a lower investment in healthcare, many socialist countries receive a return on that investment by having longer lives than Americans, fewer dead infants, and a significant reduction in overall health care costs.
The corporate-medical-industry that right wing predators are protecting jacks up the price of healthcare so that they can make more profits even while that means less money goes towards preventative care.
Thus: Under the right wing’s predatory corporate-medical-industry, Americans live shorter lives, more infants die, and the overall prices we pay are significantly higher than other industrialized countries who manage to keep their costs lower by eliminating the right wing’s predatory corporate-medical-industry model.
Marly |
December 8th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
This country needs a public option for health insurance. We’re talking about an option. We’re not talking about a government handout, but something people can opt to purchase. Physicians and hospitals will still be private. It’s a win/win for everyone.