TampaYankee

You are right, it's coming, but not without a lot of unnecessary pain and premature deaths, even among the comfortable of today as their benefits evaporate, the wasting of a lot of money that could have been put to more effective use. It will be interesting to see how the fear mongers sell their story then. As a first step to my vision, I would like to see all health benefits taxed as regular income of the earners and also as a company perk to be paid by the company. It is time that people who complain about others getting a free ride from the government stop getting a free ride from the government. Seems most logical. That'll help the deficit hawks too. I was against taxing health care benefits during the legislation developement last year. I accepted the comporomise of taxing the platinum plans. I've come around to my present position in the face of all the pissing and moaning by those who demand that we cannot afford government programs that provide health care. They need dose of what they are preaching. Some will be pleased, many will be pissed. I may wake up tomorrow and think that today was just a bad dream. Who knows? On more sober reflection, I really prefer abolishing all health insurance programs in favor of the full freight program. That would bring some quick consenus, maybe unhappy, to lowering the cost of health care delivery in this country and providing access to all.

Yeah, I expected that to happen with Viagra too, and he more so with Levitra and Cialis coming on to provide competition. However, I am unaware of any signigicant price reductions due to volume usage or competition. It seems the drug companies have established a target price that they feel is marketable and instead of lower prices through competition, they spend those 'lost price reduction dollars' on advertising.

Somebody has to be first. Congrats. Great article. Thanks. The next question is: at $12000 - $14000 a year who will be able for afford it as daily prophylatic measure? Some but few I think. If few, then it wont make much difference will it? If priced more like Viagra then that would be revolutionary.

Can we say 'hypocrisy'? I would like to see all members of Congress and all political appointees in the Executive Branch stripped of health/life benefits while in office unless and until basic health care benefits are provided to every legal resident of the U.S as a matter of course. If residents don't have a right to coverage then neither do the politicians. They can buy their own. It would also be illegal for those members and appointees to accept health benefit gifts in kind or cash. Frankly, if everyone doesnt have access to affordable health care insurance then I would like to see ALL health insurance made illegal until they qualify for Medicare. Everyone would have to pay their own way -- full freight fare. That would change a lot of attitudes among politicians, doctors, hosptals and insurance and pharmaceutical companies, not to mention the comfortable with employer paid benefits, about providing affordable heatlh care coverage to all. Damn quick too, I bet. That would effect a change among most in the 'I've got mine, fuck you' class. Not the really rich but just about everyone else, me thinks.

Republicans Could Save $2.4 Million A Year By Forgoing Their Health Care Sam Stein stein@huffingtonpost.com | HuffPost Reporting WASHINGTON -- Some progressive organizations have been making a push in recent days for incoming congressional Republicans to drop their government-sponsored health care on the grounds that keeping the plans would be hypocritical. The incident started after incoming Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) complained loudly during freshmen orientation that his coverage wouldn't start immediately upon taking office. It took a new turn when Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Penn) and Bobby Schilling (R-Ill.) both said they would, in fact, forgo the coverage. It escalated even further when White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs called out Harris for the "irony," and the municipal workers union AFSCME applied a similar charge to the whole GOP shortly thereafter. "These Republicans want to repeal health reform, putting the insurance companies back in charge and putting affordable coverage out of reach of millions of Americans," said AFSCME President Gerald W. McEntee. "If they enroll in the taxpayer-funded health care system provided to members of Congress, they deserve to be denounced as hypocrites." There is an apparent double standard with respect to lawmakers trying to reduce health care for American workers while taking a subsidy for health care for themselves. And in a Public Policy Poll released on Tuesday, a full 53 percent of respondents (and 58 percent of Republicans) said that if a congressman is opposed to the president's health care reform law, he or she should decline to participate in government-sponsored health care. But another cudgel sits there on the sidelines waiting to be used by trouble-making Democrats. If the incoming Republican Congress is so concerned about the use of taxpayer funds, it could start by foregoing taxpayer-funded health care. How much money that would save is impossible to pinpoint with great accuracy. But it's possible to make some reliable estimates. According to the Los Angeles Times, "the plan most favored by federal workers is Blue Cross Blue Shield, which covers a family for about $1,030 a month." Of that total, "taxpayers kick in $700." So far there are 242 Republicans set to be seated in the incoming House of Representatives (that could only go higher) and 47 Republicans in the Senate. The taxpayer bill for insuring all those members over the course of a single year comes to just over $2.4 million ($700 X 12 months X 289 members). Chump change? Yes, it is. That said, chump change seems to always at the heart of the most provocative political battles. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) made a big issue over the fact that $1 million was being appropriated for a Woodstock museum in upstate New York. See original article at:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/23/republicans-could-save-24_n_787662.html

Where else could we find such a wonderful and resourceful collection of posters? Here, one offers a polite bitch about a screwed up software feature that inspires sarcasm directed at management, which provokes an adventurous explorer to breach the catacombs of the software features discovering an off switch for the offending feature only after having discovered past posting gems that the software illogically revealed with its scatter shot algorithm. And we got to meet a queen along the way. (I decline to be more specfic. ) Who says MER is not unique.

Here is a timely addendum to your topic re: U.S. CORPORATIONS POST BIGGEST PROFITS EVER. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/business/economy/24econ.html

Now our views begin to converge. First though, what is a MOC? I couldn't agree more about foreigners owning our debt. I have railed against selling ourselves to China for several years in these very forums, not to much response, BTW. I also agree with the 'one-world-government'. We are careening toward Big Corporations running the world. Right now they are very strong influences on 'public' government in America, Europe, and 'rich' Asia. Eventually, they will dispense with the fiction of these 'public' governments when people become sufficiently indoctrinated to the fact. It will take some time, maybe 50 years. That is unless the pople regain control of their governments. I see no indication or even strong desire for that now. To the contrary Big Business (BB) is doing an excellent job of convincing people that what is good for BB is good for them or simply by bribing government representatives. Just look at the tax breaks for the rich, the deceptive theft from people through Wall St. big banking selling worthless paper to investors including inviduals and pension funds, health insurance and now life insurance companies reneging on coverage contracts right and left or the pharamceutical industry bribing government to force people and government to pay exhorbitant prices for drugs -- much higher than in the rest of the world. Yet, BB manages to convince people that private insurance insurance is in their best interest even when it shirks it obligations to policy holders yet charges exhorbitant rates when it accepts a policy. Banks bribe politicians to protect BB from regulations to protect investors and customers. The story goes on and on. It is testiment to their ability to sell this to the masses and when that falls short just bribe the government representatives. We agree on eliminating the corporate lobbyists and business (and union) funding of political campaigns. The one thing that would most help the people to regain control of their government would be for the Supreme Court to overturn the doctrine of Corporate Personhood which appears nowhere in the Constitution -- for those strict constuctionists out there. I am glad to see that we have some common ground to balance some of our differences.

No disrespect intended, but I sometimes wonder if we live on the same planet. Then I remember you live in France and I understand everything again.

I don't think so. Consider how history would have played out without Brown vs..., The Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act... The alternative to Brown and MLK would probably have been our own version of the modern history of South Africa, prior to the downfall of Aparthied. We had blood in the streets and churches without the oppressed taking up arms. Had they decided there was no other alternative, things might have been much bloodier. We had a lot of African Americans come back from Korea and coming back from Viet Nam who weren't so willing to be complacent as had been the case in previous decades. Can't say for sure but it seems likely to me things would change one way or the other eventually. It did in South Africa where the establishment was very resistant to change.

It was about 10:30 AM. I was sitting in my high school English class. An announcement came over the intercom informing us that the President had been shot. My teacher broke down crying in the front of the class. It was the most somber weekend of my life. It seemed so for the country too. Obviously it hasn't faded in my memory.

Interesting that Colombia is listed, especially Medillin. I wonder what the m4m scene is like in Uruguay. Never heard anything about it. Not surprised at Thailand althouh Chang Mai seems a bit removed for my taste, but then I have never been there. So what do I know? Interesting that Malayasian is so expat friendly. Never hear anything about the m4m scene there either. Nothing could attract me to Mexico in these times. Nothing! I'm not into dying in luxury or kidnappings or just living in a high stress environment. Too many other options.

The World's Top Retirement Havens For 2011 by Kathleen Peddicord Monday, November 22, 2010 Provided by As we move toward the start of the new year, it's time to take a look at the world map to identify the world's top retirement havens for 2011. Depending on the size of your retirement budget, here's where you should be looking to realize the adventure-filled retirement of your dreams. Super Affordable 1. Nicaragua -- specifically Leon, Granada, and San Juan del Sur. Nicaragua is more attractive than ever for one important reason: It's a super cheap place to live. I've been a fan of this misunderstood country since my first visit nearly 20 years ago. Property values, especially for beachfront property along the Pacific, reached bubble status last decade. Today prices are more realistic and more negotiable. In the meantime, the cost-of-living has remained seriously low. And last year Nicaragua inaugurated a new and improved foreign retiree residency program. For all these reasons, 2011 is the time to put this country at the top of your super-cheap overseas retirement list. 2. Ecuador -- specifically Cuenca. Ecuador is well established as an affordable retirement choice. A friend calls it, "the cheapest place in the world where you'd want to live". This expat-friendly country also has a pleasant climate. 3. Colombia -- specifically Medellin. This moderately priced country is cultured and sophisticated. To live an expat-standard lifestyle in Colombia, I think you would need to spend more than you would in Nicaragua or Ecuador. Real estate, on the other hand, especially in certain areas of this country, can be a screaming bargain. 4. Thailand -- specifically Chiang Mai. This exotic and adventure-filled country can be, in parts, extraordinarily affordable and even peaceful. Moderately Priced 1. Panama -- specifically Las Tablas, Boquete, and Panama City. Panama City has the best infrastructure in all of Central America, but it no longer qualifies as super-cheap. Other places in the country can be affordable. But the cost-of-living and of real estate in the capital and other more developed parts of the country has risen to the point where I wouldn't include Panama on our list of bargain havens. 2. Uruguay -- specifically Montevideo. Uruguay is safe and stable with a good standard of living. 3. Argentina -- specifically Buenos Aires and Mendoza. This is another country that used to qualify as super-cheap but has grown steadily more expensive. Still, Argentina has much to offer in the way of lifestyle. 4. Belize -- specifically Ambergris Caye and the Cayo. Ambergris Caye has white sand and the best diving in the Caribbean. This area isn't absolutely cheap, but it can be relatively affordable compared with the cost-of-living and of owning beachfront real estate on other Caribbean islands. Elsewhere in Belize can be far more affordable than Ambergris. The Cayo, for example, is a beautiful frontier where you can escape from the real world and create your own future. It's also an English-speaking country. 5. Malaysia -- specifically Kuala Lumpur and Penang. This is the most user-friendly and expat-friendly choice in Asia. Malaysia is the only country in this part of the world that makes it relatively easy for a foreigner to establish legal full-time residency. Luxury on a Budget 1. Mexico -- specifically Puerto Vallarta. My recently-rediscovered top pick for living the good life on a reasonable budget is Puerto Vallarta, Mexico. This is a fully turn-key overseas retirement option that, unlike Ajijic and Chapala, has managed to retain its Mexico-ness. This charming town boasts great restaurants and nightlife. The beaches, marinas, and golf courses are beautiful. This is my top 2011 choice for a five-star retirement at the beach on a three-star budget. 2. France -- specifically Paris and Languedoc. France is a country of superlatives and one of the best places on earth to live well. Paris has the world's best luxury lifestyle options while Languedoc offers quintessential French country living. Get started now, and you could be living the good life in your new home overseas by this time next year. See original article at: http://finance.yahoo.com/focus-retirement/article/111327/top-retirement-havens-in-the-world-2011?mod=fidelity-livingretirement

Not to worry much more... the waiting is almost over. Give it three more weeks -- two past Thanksgiving Week. I suspect that Lugar and Collins have said what is reported. I also expect that they will come under extreme pressure from McConnel, Kyl and McCain. It remains to be seen if they weather that storm. I believe the key is Collins. Lugar will follow through if he has one other to make 60. Else why get burned at the stake in a losing cause. He's fed up with the 'Just Say No' GOP tactics. This Nuclear Treaty is really going to separate him from the pack.

I suspect your difference would fall on deaf ears in the donor states. IMO this response is illogical and unrealistic. Your problem should not be with him but with the other senators. He cannot do anything by himself other than propose. It takes at least fifty others if not sixty others to dispose. To expect every senator or representative to discipline themselves is a pretty unrealistic view of politicians who promise things to get elected. Reform is needed but it is clear that we are no nearer to reform today than we were a year or ten years ago. It is going to be politics as usual. I also suspect your idea of reform is probably not the idea that some others have of reform. Therein lies the rub. Everybody wants 'reform', knows the problems but has different solutions. If your only goal is to reduce the deficit that is straightforward. However, I suspect that you would reject my straightforward solution. Thus your goal is not just reducing the deficit but doing so within your own orthodoxy. It is the same for the other side. No signs yet of serious compromise by either side. So reducing the deficit is NOT the most important goal yet, else it would be done. Yep, politics as usual.

Agreed.

I've got to believe that if we had honest state and congressional representation that the American People wouldn't be fleeced like this. This is what you get when the system enables corporate political contributions. Our institutions really are corrupted.

I suspect it is just frustration with the Fox Noise Channel aka Faux News Channel and the proclivity of mainstream news to validate it as a news source. Lumping in MSNBC and others is probably a probably a sop to 'fair play' and 'even handedness' as they are overtly political too, even if they don't make up facts and perpetuate lies fabricated by others. As for The FCC, well not every Senator always knows of what he speaks. This is hardly surprising. It is scary but Rockefellar is one of the least we need to be scared about. As for funneling funds and voting the interests of the home state... well that is what representation is all about isn't it? Else we would have voters from NY elect WV representatives and vice versa, no? I don't fault one representing the interst of his/her state. If those interests go against the interest of the country as a whole then that ought to be apparent to the representatives of the other 49 states.

euwwwwww... it's like taking a shower with your socks on.

Pretty amazing. A great start. The real challenge will be to maintain it and transform the community sprit into a more positive channel. Of course jobs and more coummunity investment would help too.

Life Insurance Companies Cancel Thousands Of Policies Due to copyright restrictions please see the article at: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-life-insure-20101121,0,4197678.story

Pretty much.

This is totally bogus IMO. How many of us have carried on in suanas like that in the past? Would we all want our lives put on the front page? If it weren't for who he is then it wouldn't be an issue. His sex life shouldnt be an issue unless he is public hypocrit about it. I haven't seen him take public actions that would qualify for that. As far as being a member of a church or religious group, that is not only thin but totally insufficent as a reason for outting. That opens to the door to outting every catholic and every member of most other christian sects on that basis. To repeat... it's wrong no matter how titillated we may be by reading about it.

Ridiculous Corporate Subsidies Creating Middle Class 'Wealth Destruction' First Posted: 11-19-10 05:35 PM | Updated: 11-19-10 05:48 PM Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Cay Johnston says it's no accident that the middle class has been shrinking. In fact, in a recent conversation with Aaron Task and Daniel Gross on Yahoo's Tech Ticker, Johnston argues that the middle class is a direct result of a maze of subsidies and sweetheart deals that states and cities have doled out to big companies. (Johnston is the author of "Free Lunch: How The Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves At Government Expense (And Stick You With The Bill.") "We've changed the government rule book in tremendous ways this enormous growth of incomes at the top is not the result of market forces," Johnston says, "it's the result of all these rules nobody knows about." Among the questionable benefits that Johnston identifies are the deals received by teams in America's biggest four sports which, he says, get subsidies that are worth more than their combined profit. Cabelas, a sporting goods store, got $1.37 in subsidies for every dollar of profit it brought in, he notes. States are spending approximately $70 billion on these type of corporate subsidies, but that may be understating the case. "Is that capitalism?," Johnston argues. "Go compete in a competitive arena. Don't go to Washington and say 'Give me money' either by saying 'I don't have to pay taxes' or forcing other people to pay taxes that go to me. Go earn your money in the marketplace." He added: "Every community is doing this Every state is doing this... the net effect is wealth destruction and concentrating money in the hands of those who are politically connected." WATCH the interview -- and check out Yahoo Tech Ticker for more information at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/19/david-cay-johnston_n_786243.html

I do not know how this can be rationalized as anything but unconsitutional under the Fourth Ammendment. Congressional statues cannot trump the Constitutiona. Nevertheless, the courts seems to be upholding Customs' actions. Just another example of strict constructionists falling back on the strict construction depending on how they see it.