And while I try to be selective with my friends, I can't always help who I end up hanging out with.

I'm not saying these jokes are funny, but that doesn't stop people from laughing.

I'm not going to go all O'Reily and start crying myself a river of pity for the injustice heaped upon white men; but jokes about man/boy rape are common place. And Letterman's joke was clearly about the daughter who HAD gotten pregnant, not the 14 y/o. That doesn't make the joke tasteful, and I'm not saying we should tells these jokes about boys are girls.

But when you reach for the most distateful interpretation and pretend that these jokes are never told about men, it dilutes an otherwise valid message.

As the kids like to say, Let's keep it real.

j/k. It actually amazes me the number of people who are willing to stand up and take a beating in the name of justice.

It's tough to know what exactly is going to make it through the legislative process.

That's why I think it is important to hear the warning which I *think* MiddleClassBill is trying to convey.

I don't think any sane person would suggest that we outlaw private insurance as it exists today. But the vested interest who lobby congress do not always act in what we'd consider a rational manner. Or rather, their rational is not always in our best interest.

Will you PLEASE tell me who your provider is, and how I can gain access to your provider's services?

I was happy with my private provider 9 years ago, but since then my premiums have gone up and my benefits have been cut, primarly through increasing deductables and increasing cost of service.

So Bill, will you please share information on your provider, and how we can all join up with a good provider? Or do you think it's possible that I won't be able to join your plan because I'm part of the wrong group???

That's what the "public option" is. Everyone has access to the "pulic option". If it sucks, no one will use it. If it's better than the private plans. . . well, the private plans are in trouble.

I believe single payer, in this context refers to the public option being consoledate, as opposed to the "public option" working by subsidising hundreds of insurance compnaies who have 10's of thousands of employees to pay.

This certainly does not precluded private insurance companies from competing.

In order to get a feel, I'm curious if MiddleClass is interested in addressing the thesis of the orginal post. WHO do you want to ration your health care? It WILL be rationed, whether by your private insurance company, the money in your pocket, or a public insurance system. The question is not whether you want your health care rationed but who will do the rationing.

By ignoring the right-wing connections of this particular killer, NPR is building it's "fair-and-balanced" creds.

The DHS memo definitely reads like an echo of "Bin Laden Determined to Strike".

Do you think we can blame Obama's BHS and justice department for not acting more forcefully to prevent these attacks?

Did the history of these two men, who became killers, justify pre-emptive arrest and/or detention?

Perhaps if Obama would have allowed the use of enhanced interegation techniques, we could have convinced either of these killers to reveal the ticking time-bomb within. . .

Seriously, I'm glad that our goverment has begun to pay some small respect to the rule of law and the value of civil liberties. But the price of living in a free society is that terrorism will happen.

No hatered is required to explain that war is what works for these guys

The neo-cons are simple creatures of habit, reflexively suckling at the teat that has fed them ever since they arrived on the scene.

Increases in military spending has spilled money and power into the hands of people who are willing to finance and employ neo-cons. Why would we expect them to do anything but continue to try to create a need for more military spending.

I agree whole-heartedly that insurance companies have a conflict of interest. Several conflicts in fact. As you point out they want to minimize their payout in any particular year.

But somewhat suprisingly, it is in the best interest of the insurance companies to have overall medical cost go up.

Of course an individual company wants to minimize what it pays out compared to the company next-door. But so long as insurance is mandatory (either de facto as in the case of recruiting in-demand employees, or legislatively as in MA) higher medical costs mean higher premiums means higher profits.

Hence, the interest of the insurance company is to have overall medical costs increase as quickly as possible.

However, they have created a perverted pricing system that really does harm those who decline to pay for protection.

The $7K tests, and the $300 office visits are both evidence of harm that the current system has broght us.

There is a very simple explaination for why the insurance company model is failing us.

1. Insurance companies make a percentage of the insurance premiums paid.
2. The higher the prices for medical care, the higher the preumiums must be.
3. Insurance companies profits are a small percentage of premiums.

Therefor the higher the price of medicine the higher their profits.

Insurance companies have every incentive for medicine to be more expensive, and so they don't fight cost increases.

And you are right; a contract honestly entered should be binding and should be honored. And the money did come at good rates, so I'm sure taking TARP money didn't exactly cost our bank a lot of money.

I guess I find myself whining because we (at my employer) just like all of America are paying for the greed and irresponsibility of others; but for the moment at least "we" as bank look a lot like those others, irrespective of the fact that I believe we acted differently.

Obviously, these are my opinions and do not represent the views of my employer.

And Dick Cheney has defended his daughter's right to be in potentially illegal relationships. So it follows that the daughter should defend her father's right to break the law.

First the disclaimer :
My opinion is biased by the fact that I work for one of the banks eager and able to pay off our TARP debt.

My argument :
We never needed and never wanted TARP money. My employer runs an honest, responsible bank which didn't gamble with depositors money.

As a result, over the past decade my employer stood out as a relative poor performer compared to the likes of Citi and AIG. Consequently, our compensation and bonuses (including that of our CEO) were modest compared to the going rate at Ponzi-corps like Fannie Mae.

But when it came time to bail out the insolvent banks, The Fed pushed VERY hard to be sure all large banks took TARP funds so that TARP recipients wouldn't be stigmatized. We have continued to make profits, and have never been in danger of insolvency. But not wanting to induce a panic in the markets or invite the wrath of The Fed, my employer complied with the directives of The Fed and took TARP money.

Now, with the risk of panic receding we want out!
We have been modestly rewarded for responsible behavior by a small influx of business due to the "flight to quality". But this has been mitigated by a successful effort to NOT highlight the truly insolvent beasts like BoA/Merell.

So I'm sorry if we want out. But we're getting tired of carrying other banks water, and getting paid shit for our honesty. In the end, we'll probably honor all the warrants, because we don't employ an army of lobbyist.

The moral here: if you want to be sure no one runs an honest business next time around, be sure you screw the honest guy hardest this time around.

So we just might get to see the bell weather bitch-slap test of Harry Reid vs Supreme Court.

But seriously, I don't think the Scalia has a hard-on for Coleman like he did for Cheney.

Major clue - If you aren't allowed to look behind the curtain, then there is something wrong behind the curtain.