I think that's true of donors when their organs have been transplanted. I'm not sure it's the case overall. I had to take neuroanatomy and gross anatomy in grad school and we actually met the families of the people who had donated their bodies to the medical school. There was a big reception and everything. It was weird.

i know a donor's family who met the recipient

Virginia state Sen. R. Creigh Deeds (unsuccessfully ran for governor in 2009) stabbed multiple times in home, 24 yr old son (Gus) fatally shot.

The unfolding story... It was the son (Gus) who stabbed his father, still trying to determine how the son got shot (self-inflicted, etc.) but as of now they're saying it was attempted murder and suicide. Son was taken to a hospital yesterday for a psychiatric hold and eval but was released because there were no available beds.

POLITICO ‏@politico
Rep. Trey Radel, a freshman Republican from Florida, was arrested on Oct. 29 for possession of cocaine in D.C. http://politi.co/1bZjysK

That's a good way to make sure you don't become a sophomore congressman

that's the guy who wrote the "why i'm a hip hop conservative" on buzzfeed a few weeks ago, isn't it?

edit: haha, yeah he is http://www.buzzfeed.com/treyradel/trey- ... ative-ah8y

Q: What’s your favorite vacation spot outside Florida?
A: Cartagena, Colombia.

May have tried to say this before, but here goes:



I'm a conservative (eh, more like a Libertarian who likes big gov when it comes to military) but an ex-Republican because it's been 99% clowns for more than a decade.

I'd like All Americans to have the best health care that is feasible.

As a conservative, I rarely think that government can be the best provider of services. I know that whenever government interferes in markets, the tilted results are worse than if there was no interference. Use whatever example you like - telecom, sugar tariffs, food as fuel, paying farmers to not grow crops, setting minimum prices for milk, etc. It's misguided policy to begin with, and is quickly distorted by pols as a means to buy votes or a means to pay back or pre-pay for campaign backers.

I think that most Americans are fully capable of providing for themselves, and I like rules and laws that encourage self-sufficiency. That includes food, housing, transport, medical care, good gin, and xBox. We'll talk in a moment about helping those who cannot provide for themselves. I believe in the social safety net.

Our health care system, pre-ACA, is superb in many ways and deeply flawed. Most Americans have had excellent health care, albeit with costs spiraling far beyond inflation.

So the question is simple: How do we control spiraling costs, and how do we get quality health care to those going without?

Let's talk about the costs. A big factor is our sense of entitlement and the fact that we expect "someone else" to buy our health insurance for us. I buy my own food, my own car and house, my gin for certain. I buy my own car, home, and life insurance. Why should I expect my employer, or my fellow taxpayers, to buy my health insurance?

When you disconnect the payor of the services and the receiver of the services, you get inefficient use of resources. My own health care just went from a standard BC/BS plan to a high deductible plan, and already I am being choosy about elective services, because now it comes out of MY pocket.

So fix #1 should have been to phase out the employer's tax advantages for providing health care.

Fix #2 is harder, but we all need to stop thinking we need insurance to cover our statin pills and routine meds. We don't need insurance to cover our restaurant bills. We should think of insurance as a pooling mechanism to cover costs that would create serious financial harm. Now, our thresholds differ in that regard, but that is a detail that can be handled.

Cogent working people should be free to shop and buy, or not buy, a high-ded plan or a catastrophe plan. If they want to insure against every last nickel, go ahead. But this would be real competition, not a plan that forces the young and healthy to subsidize the old and frail even when the young are poor and the old are wealthy.

For all of us, there is a good chance that we'll face a catastrophic (even if just financially) illness. Here is where I would support a collective solution. We already have that for folks over 65 - Medicare, and that's good, because the older you get the more you need it. For folks under 65, I'd like to see some plan that government provides, or pays for, to cover all medical expenses that exceed, say, $10,000 in a year. And perhaps on a sliding scale, depending on your last 1040.

Now what about the people who are so poor that they cannot afford to buy any insurance or treatment? I volunteer my tax dollars for them. Now, they are not going to get the Cadillac treatment that I can afford, just like they can't live in the same neighborhood, drive the same car, or drink the best gin. I don't know the best way to get decent health care delivered to the poor. Perhaps government clinics, but better would be a model that if you already qualify for food stamps, you can get free basic treatment at the WalMart or CVS clinic. I don't think the details here are the hard part.

Insurers perform a great service by pooling risk. They are great guys and ladies, but even so, they do it for the money. Forcing them to "take all comers" is bad policy. Let the good risks and the financially capable find their own bargains, and let's turn to a collective solution for those who cannot afford coverage or who have prohibitively expensive conditions.

Same result - coverage for all - without government ruining the market operation.

Bonus - with employers out of the health care business, American companies are better positioned to compete in a global economy, and less inclined to ship jobs overseas.

Win, Win, Win. No politics required.

TomatoPie wrote:... setting minimum prices for milk ...

Speaking of...

Did they ever pass a new farm bill after the shutdown? It was reported back then that the price of milk would go to around $10 per gallon without one.

I don't care if the family's teeth fall out, I ain't payin' that much for frikkin milk. I don't pay that much for a gallon of "wine".

The reason why insurance covers statins is that they're a lot less expensive than bypass surgery. Indeed, you could argue that someone who needs bypass surgery because they didn't take their statins should pay for the surgery.

But the overall point--that insurance generally pays for catastrophic losses, not routine expenses is relevant. So, maybe a better route is to stop thinking about paying for healthcare whether routine or catastrophic in terms of insurance.

I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

http://www.businessinsider.com/charts-o ... ty-2013-11

Some more info on wealth inequality. Been getting worse since the mid 70s...

Holy shit--Trey Radel took classes at Second City Improv. Second City has a location in Toronto. CONNECT THE DOTS!

jerseyhoya wrote:A fast death leading to a major overhaul is better than a cycle of increased costs and subsidies and costs and subsidies.

I would take it to the Nope thread, but I"m too lazy

Werthless wrote:

Romney would hold a slight lead on President Obama if the 2012 election were replayed today, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
The poll of registered voters shows Romney at 49 percent and Obama at 45 percent in the rematch, a mirror image of Romney’s four-point (51-47) popular-vote loss in 2012.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... eld-today/

All due congratulations to the winner of the Fantasy Presidential Election contest, Milt Romney

TomatoPie wrote:....I'd like All Americans to have the best health care that is feasible.


...


...


....



Win, Win, Win. No politics required.

gaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh

that is all

If Rob Ford ever finds out about this, watch out Toronto...

Romney leading in 3rd order wins.

Texas refuses to process military house allowances for gay couples because, you know, GAY:

The Texas National Guard has moved a step further in its defiance of a Pentagon policy toward gay service members by refusing to process military housing allowances for same-sex couples, according to a gay-rights group.

The Texas Military Force, which includes the state’s guard forces, acknowledged on Monday that it was requiring all same-sex couples wanting to apply for a housing allowance at a “with dependent” rate must do so at a federal installation.

The American Military Partner Association, which represents gay military spouses, said the Texas National Guard has already turned away at least one couple that applied for the benefit at a state facility.

we're not discriminating except we are making you go through extra hoops!!!

The Texas National Guard on Monday insisted that it is not denying benefits to same-sex couples, despite its requirement that gays must apply for the housing rate at federal installations.

“We want every gay National Guard member entitled to benefits to obtain those benefits,” said Texas Military Forces spokeswoman Laura Lopez. “We are not denying any benefits for people who are entitled to them, to include housing.”

Lopez added that gay couples who have been approved for the “with dependent” housing allowance will “absolutely get that rate.”

Texas is one of six states that have refused to issue military IDs to gay spouses, telling same-sex couples they must apply for benefits at federal installations because their laws or constitutions prohibit the recognition of gay marriage. ‘The other states include Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and South Carolina.

jesus fucking christ, enough with the 'enduring presence' in Afghanistan.