iwishiwascool

I hope that you are never in a position to understand first hand the perils of the system as it was. I did and it changed my perspective. My six figure income and fully funded PPO did not keep my family from almost becoming a victim of the realities the system. Had a single test come back with a different result my life would be very different right now. I'll leave it at that.

Case 1.) Let's say you lost your job, maybe your wife did at the same time. Hypothetically speaking (I don't know that I've met you) your BMI is 30 and your wife had a minor treatment for ovarian cysts or cervical pre-cancer or something. When your COBRA runs out and you attempt to get a plan on the open market you will find that if you can get coverage it will cost thousands per month. You simply cannot afford it. You have a minor heart attack and spend 5 days at Riverside. You are now bankrupt and the rest of CR is paying for your hospital visit. Case 2.) Let's say you and your wife are 1099 employees, your total household income is around 100k. Let's use the couple above, what percentage of their income do you think will be dedicated to health insurance? Case 3.) You are a good card carrying insurance holder. Let's say you get cancer, your insurance helped cover most issues; you recover. You never let your insurance lapse (because you know that would mean never being insured again). 3 years later the cancer comes back. The lifetime limit on your policy is a fairly standard 1M. This round of treatment puts you over the mark and you are not fully responsible for coverage. No additional treatment will be provided until you pay up. When you become acute and eventually need emergency care I and the rest of the taxpayers then absorb your costs. Sometimes personal responsibility is just not an affordable proposition, even to the most responsible of citizens. You can believe that we should let the above people rot like third world countries do, but I believe this nation is better than that. I don't believe we need to give free handouts; that is not what healthcare reform is about. It is about demanding personal responsibility and punishing your stupid ass if you reject it... in a way that doesn't leave you dead and your family bankrupt. Getting everyone into the pool lowers overall risk and reduces the aggregate cost to insure each individual. We simply cannot fix all of the things that are fucking awful about insurance carriers without getting everyone in the pool OR creating a single payer system. The only alternative is the "let them rot" solution posted before. This bill is not nearly perfect, not by a long shot but it may well very likely save someone in your life who faces a tragedy after doing everything "right".

Yeah I don't care to go down the "helping poor people route" of liberal activism. I hate poor/lazy/fat people as much or more than the next guy. I think the right could do a better job at keeping their outrage in proportion: -Only 1.7% of people derive more than 50% of their income from government assistance (Does not include Medicare). It's less than 8% if you include any assistance. -This represents ~2% of the overall budget. -93% of welfare fraud is committed by vendors, not recipients. If I subscribed to the beliefs within the email chain letters sent to me by every elderly person I've ever met I'd think we were being overrun with poor people. I find it silly to base your entire political paradigm on what effectively represents anecdotal experiences and not the statistical reality. Corporate subsidies represent almost double that dedicated to social welfare programs. Where is your outrage about those? So when your argument is "but what about all the moochers, let's try to keep reality in perspective.

Planned to but I have a conflict. I've wanted to attend the past 2 years.

So from what I can tell (aside from those of you plotting a revolt) that the platform of your frustration is with those who abuse the social safety net system and associated fraud. Is that right?

Hasn't a "state or war" been reinterpreted once or twice since WWII. My American Flag emblazoned bottle of Sweedish Vodka (Irony!) is dry. I'm done. My debate skills are better when there is an articulated starting point. Usually the starting point is a bit later than 1776. I can argue that regardless of one's Libertarian views (which I understand, I really do) there are certain realities that exist in our medical system: 1.) The Hippocratic Oath and Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986 require medical providers to render care. 2.) Number one creates free loaders who wait to enter into the system until their medical need is acute. 3.) We as tax payers and insurance carriers pay for these freeloaders already 4a.) Pre-existing condition clauses suck -especially if you or someone you love has been denied coverage because of one. 4b.) lifetime limits and abrupt dropages suck -especially if you or someone you love has been denied coverage because of one. 5.) Mandating number 4 while still caring for number 2 would allow people to only get coverage when they have a condition and exponentially increase costs. 6.) Nobody want's to pay for freeloaders. So how do we promise all of 4, continue to allow 2, and prevent 5 without exponentially increasing costs to insurance carriers? Mitt dedicated to keep all of the parts of the bill that people like but vowed to eliminate the piece that payed for it. How do any of you constitutional fundamentalists suggest we accomplish this with anything other than an individual mandate or a single payer system?

Yeah the cocktail(s) impacted my fingers on that one, I meant traitor/treason.

Ok. I'm sorry I'm navigating this "debate" like a drunken 5 year old. We've gone from discussing how to reform healthcare with an equitable solution to whether our ruling body is a legitimate entity. I think the context of any debate requires certain constants. If we can't even agree that we need to work in the existing framework of legislature, executive power and judicial oversight and that hitting some sort of reset button is the answer than we aren't going to get anywhere. This is the real world. Sometimes your team wins, sometimes it loses. If your answer to said loss is violence vs. effective use of democracy then a patriot you are not regardless of what your blowhard pundit of choice tells you.

It is not and has never been the job of those elected to vote based on popular opinion. The job of statesmen is to vote for the greater good of the nation. Whether the ACA is or is not, I do not care to say. I agree with the rest. I believe Citizens United exacerbated the unity between money and political agendas on both sides of the aisle. Let's put numbers to "large movement of people who want to modify our government to more appropriately conform to the fundamental mold". I assume you are implying that there is a large number or constitutional fundamentalists who are set to rebel via "military" action?

I'll ignore your ad-hominem critique of my command of the English language. So, again, so I'm clear: You are calling for an armed revolt against "domestic enemies" and don't consider yourself one? Isn't that, by definition, tyranny? They were elected, you were not. Did you threaten to take up arms when the Medicare Prescription Drug Act was pushed through congress via unscrupulous means in 2003? Geezeoman, what a hen house. All we've done is discuss reactionary emotional impulses and not the impetus.

Oh I agree. However, I don't think the sanctity of the ACA is really contingent on the validity of the framework of the republic that the founders outlined. You can't claim to be a die hard constitutional patriot in one breath then claim that our representative Republic is (and as a result, always has been) a broken system.

Standing left of center, I had to google "pmags" The Tea Act went through without the direct representation within said Parliament (I'm drunk enough to consider smoking one now). You and I likely voted in the 2008/2010 election. As a result of this legal and fair election we are constituents of a democratically elected representation to stand for our geographical and national interests in their respective elected bodies. Just because you don't like who other people elected does not mean you or I do not, in fact, have representation.

So as a result of the judgement, you are planning on rationing care based on one's ability to pay. How is this different from the way your practice operates now?

Isn't that the truth. The reality is that people prefer to surround themselves with those that will echo their own preconceived notions. I think the fundamental plank of a vibrant democracy is the ability to have constrictive dialogue without resorting to the ad-hominem arguments and bumper sticker slogans. If your argument is valid, it will stand up to the questions I ask. If mine is valid it will do the same. In the context of the conversation we both might learn something that gives insight on the arrival to a defined perspective. I'm like 3 cocktails in waiting to argue, I'm three sips from being a pushover. Time for a refill.

Just so I'm clear. Your visceral reaction to a Supreme Court decision not going in a way that squares with your narrow ideology... is armed revolt... against the United States of America. You believe that the duly elected legislators who passed this legislation in accordance with the congressional rules of the house and senate, signed by duly elected president of the executive branch, and upheld by a, by all counts, conservative leaning Supreme Court (with majority opinion being written by a republican nominee) is grounds for such action. All this based on legislation crafted by the Republican party in the 1980s? Do I have that right?

My favorite result of the conservative uprising against the ACA is that when it was crafted and framed by the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation 20 years ago it appealed to conservatives in the fact that it removed emergency room freeloaders from the government teet and forced them to have some "skin in the game". Now it is a socialist facist communist overreach by a Manchurian candidate who looks like a darker Hitler When a mandate to buy a service from private, competing, for-profit entities is called "socialism"... we clearly need to invest in our schools.

You use an eye-fi card and it does it automagically. If you are off-site you can use cydia to turn the jailbroken iPad into a hotspot creating the network for the card. The D600 will have dual slots so one can be used for real storage while the other exports the jpgs for quick review. It's super easy.

I tend to lean left on many issues, the second amendment isn't one of them. I think that is awesome.

Eek, It's been a while since I posted here regularly but it seems we've swung even a bit further to the right. You guys must have scared the left leaners away. So, I'm game. I have a cocktail in hand and a mountain of photoshoping to do... Is the mandate the only thing that violates your collective ideology or are there other specific provisions with which you disagree?

I think the advantage I see in having more focal points is that they are individually smaller. When you use the center weight point it is far more accurate. I'm also going to start shooting directly to an iPad so composition and focus can be verified before moving on. I shot in RAW so the differing WBs was my own doing in LR. I just realized you can copy paste the whole color profile. Rookie move. Good tips on the AFL, I was just switching to manual mode once I thought I had it right. I appreciate all the feedback.

You're right, I don't think I nailed the focus on that one especially. The D40x has exactly 3 focal points vs. my forthcoming D600's 39. Luckily I took a million at that scene and have a clearer one. I'll get it up tomorrow. Likewise on the red umbrella one. I learned that shooting with a really shallow DOF, a moving target, in low light is effing hard.

We definitely reached the limits of the camera. We found unacceptable noise at ISO800 and couldn't keep them still enough for any kind of slow exposure even at f/1.8.

Yeah, we are looking forward to it. I didn't know it even existed before I was married on a beach there.

I had a similar incident. I'm fairly certain it was a CR Member(s) who had been to my place before. So it goes. I've accidentally tested our security system twice and both times the police were there before I could remember my password.

I do dig a 10mm lens. I rented a 12-24 and decided I had to have one.