I say yes, you say no, OR People are Strange

Blue .. That looks like Virgil!  Ha .. he's so cute.

Bren

Although I am now soon to be 65 and catching up with Medigal, I do remember being a teen and, yes, "making out".  Loved the drive-in movies...who watched them???????????  I also remember the ravaging hormones. And I remember self-control and the fear of getting pregnant and the fear of what my mom would do.  My best friend at the time got pregnant when she was 16.  She "had" to get married (the guy was much older and didn't want to marry her), They left town so it wouldn't be in the local newspaper.  There was such a stigma attached to getting pregnant before marriage BACK THEN.  It no longer is that way.   

Have a good one.  I'm going to get my hair cut.  And, all the discussion in the world will change no ones mind about this subject. 

lindasa wrote:

Online gifts to Planned Parenthood have surged by 500 percent since Republicans passed a budget amendment stripping the group of its federal funding.

NARAL Pro-Choice America's email activist list grew by 1,000 subscribers per day at the height of the budget debate.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52962.html#ixzz1JQuGyJXb

If they're receiving so many donations now, why do they need taxpayer's dollars.  I'm not saying I'm against all of PP's services...I'm just saying............

Ann, what a steller post.  Agree with what has already been said about you and your parents.  I never saw anyone who had to deal with a back alley abortion but I read enough about it to know that while I never wanted an abortion for myself, I could not take that choice away from others.

As has already been said, those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.  I think we will be repeating many things from the past in the future.  I hope by the time my monsters are of voting age, they will be able to turn things around.

I looked up the % of people in the US with incomes greater than $100,000--you know the group who will have to pay more taxes under the Obama plan. . .no wait, only the people making over $250,000. whatever!  Per FactCheck.org, thats a whopping 2% of the population. . . 2% who would have to pay  more in taxes.  Oh and only about 5% make more than $100,000 so say about 3% between $100,000 and $250,000.  I know what we pay in taxes.....it sure as heck doesn't cover what my family of five receives in benefits from our country.

Moving right along, I confess, I can't think of any veggies I don't like.  We had spagetti and tomato sauce for dinner last night.  No meat.  DH was away on a school field trip so we went for the pasta.  He is trying the gluten free diet to see if he feels better.  This means funky quinoa pasta for him or no pasta.. . .

Hi Barbara!

Thanks for posting the article.  Rather than be confused by dueling pundits, I read the CBO's analysis of Ryan's plan.  You can find it here:

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12128

CBO confirms that Ryan's plan would "result in much lower deficits and
debt in the long run than the amounts in CBO’s [existing] scenarios. Under the proposal, the
federal budget would show a deficit of about 2 percent of GDP in 2022, a slight surplus
in 2040, and a surplus of about 4 percent of GDP in 2050. The ratio of debt to
GDP would fall sharply—from about 70 percent of GDP in 2022 to about 10 percent
in 2050."  (from pg 15 of the link posted above)

I'm all for fiscal responsibility!  However, a few things jumped out at me as I read further:

1.   There are no limits to what an insurance company can charge a qualified Medicare recipient.  So even if I get the full subsidy, an insurance company could still charge twice that in premiums.  How will aged, retired, disabled people afford that?

2.  Beginning in 2013, Medicaid converts to a block grant program.  Starting in 2022, those grants would be reduced "to exclude projected spending for acute care services for elderly Medicaid beneficiaries."  I would assume those costs would be paid by the "Medicare" insurance?  Or perhaps by the various states?  It's unclear to me who would pay for those costs, and how.

3.  Reductions in all other spending, except for interest, was determined by Ryan's staff.  All other spending "...includes federal civilian and military retirement, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, unemployment compensation, Supplemental Security Income, the refundable portion of the earned income and child tax credits, and most veterans’ programs."  This category of spending accounted for 12% of GDP in 2010; Ryan's proposal decreases it over time until it bottoms out at 6% in 2021.  After 2021, it will continue to decrease based on a GDP deflator.  Ryan's proposal does not specify which programs will be cut.  

So what do you want to do away with to make up the 50% cut?  Benefits for those nasty federal employees?  Military?  Nutrition assistance?  Unemployment?  Refundable credits for low income families?  Veterans' programs?

4.  Revenues:  "The path for revenues as a percentage of GDP was specified by Chairman Ryan’s staff.  The path rises steadily from about 15 percent of GDP in 2010 to 19 percent in 2028
and remains at that level thereafter. There were no specifications of particular revenue
provisions that would generate that path."

So yes, it sounds good, but the specifics are missing.  And I fear those specifics are going to hurt the people who can least afford it.

Edited to fix the link.

Single payer.....single payer.....single payer.....single payer................

But ... but ... but ... it is MOST important that insurance companies makes lots and lots of money!!!  It's not like the reason for their existence is to provide a service to people ... people exist to provide them with money.     

Single payer is the most efficient and cost effective system.  But it cuts out the big profits ... so as long as those who are profiting can afford to buy our politicians it is never going to happen.  Sad state of affairs. 

When I hear/read these spiffy ideas about seniors paying for their own insurance, I think of my MIL.  She has worked since she was 16 but because she was married young, she could only work minimum wage blue collar jobs.  She was a single parent with two kids.  Sometimes, she missed meals because there just wasn't enough.  Once her kids grew up, she went back to school, earned her BA and then a masters in public health.  Then she spent the next X years working in the highly paid career of the elderly and disabled, particularly the mentally handicapped.  She recently retired [65] because she just couldn't do the job anymore--too physical and she was worn out.  Now she get a whomping $15g a year in income.  And some of her friends make less---say $12,000 a year.  Period. She lives in subsidized housing and pays $100 a month for health insurance supplement.  

Where exactly will the money come from for her to pay for health insurance?  And don't tell me it won't impact her because she's already in the system---there are LOADS of "hers" out there who  will be impacted.

She did everything "right"---paid her taxes, went to church, volunteers in her community, you name it.  IMHO, it is not right that we reduce our elderly---and face it many many many of the elderly will be women---to missing meals to cover their health insurance?

I'm also worried about the projected 27% increase in revenues.  Where's THAT coming from?

We're going to see tax increases no matter what.  We have to make up for years of tax cuts and wars!

Shirley:  Aw, come on now "catching up with Medigal"??  How can you catch up with someone who can't prove how old she is?   But if you want to make it a race, you can win and be lots older as long as they let me keep my Medicare and Social Security.    I am really concerned about what they are stirring up in Washington with Medicare.  WE paid for that for YEARS while working and they have NO right to change it on us midstream.  Not that the politicians have a conscience or a brain about what they are doing.   Any of you who want to pay "more" taxes can pay my share.  We don't use many of all those resources that were mentioned since we stay home a lot so, why should we have to pay more.  We pay enough taxes and we don't get to take all those deductions the rich get to take.  So I say, let the RICH get taxed more.  It will help make up for all the taxes they probably owed over the years but didn't pay due to all the ways they have to get out of paying.  We are soon going to have NO middle class in this country.  Just the rich and the poor at the rate we are going.  My biggest concern is how we are going to get the healthcare we need if they mess around with Medicare and the system as it is now.  Oh well, there is something to be said about being elderly (for those who know they are).  Your best years are behind you!   Always glad to cheer everyone up.  If you want to really get in a cheerful mood, turn on the "No Glenn Beck Show".  He has been gone all week.   Maybe he moved to Canada! Watch out Blue, Beck may be turning up on your tv before long!

Medigal, I agree that we are losing our middle class in this country.  And we are probably on the same page with regard to who is burdened more by their percentage of the taxes. 

But I don't get what you are saying about how you stay home so you don't use the resources I listed [in extreme brief]---you have electricity in your house?  telephone? water?  much of the original infrastructure in our country was done by the feds.  Do you buy food in a grocery store?  Setting aside what I think of how they do the job, its feds dealing with food safety.  how does your food get to your store--train?  more tax dollars.  moving stuff by 18 wheeler?  where do the roads come from?  You paid into the system but what you paid doesn't cover all of what you will receive.  And how much that next generation can earn to put into the system will be impacted by the education they receive. . . education that comes from tax dollars.

3monts:  Well if you are going to nitpick everything, I guess you may have a point.  I don't drink much water at all, and use as little electricity as I can but it's nice to have it available when I want it. I was focusing on going to parks and using recreational activities.  I think the taxes we do pay should cover the things we do use.  It's not our fault our government does not know how to manage the funds it takes from us.  If I handled our income like the gov handles our tax dollars I would be on a corner with a sign "Will work for food".  We need to get some people in Washington who know how to budget the funds they take from us.  I truly resent that we are expected to budget and live frugally while Washington blows our tax dollars and then expects us to give them more.  Something really wrong here!

When single payer came up previously, the right-wingers brought up fears of death panels.

Providing medical coverage at a cost too great for the average american - isn't that just another form of death panel?  It then becomes, if you are rich, or working you get medical care, if not ....

Re:  crawfish for dinner (in response to Lindasa's question)

What we call "crawfish" here in the South are also called "crayfish" (mostly by Yankees), "crawdads", or "mudbugs".  I learned something interesting yesterday when looking for fun info about crawfish.

If you Google the image "crawfish", mostly you'll get pictures of the cooked, ready-to-eat variety.  For example, here's a typical pic of boiled crawfish (http://blog.how2heroes.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/img_1764.jpg).  These have been cooked with lemon, and undoubtedly with a special mixture of spices and flavorings called "crab boil" (or "shrimp boil"):

In a traditional, Louisiana-style "crawfish boil", the cook will also toss in some short cobs of sweet corn, small red potatoes, and probably other stuff I don't know about. 

The part of the crawfish that most people eat is the tail meat, although some people (e.g., Cajuns and those wishing to emulate Cajuns) will "suck the head" to pull out the "fat", which is actually an organ called the hepatopancreas.

If, instead of Googling "crawfish", you Google images for "crayfish", most of the hits will be the live critters.  There are lots of different kinds of wild crayfish in the U.S. and elsewhere.  Most of the wild ones here in North America are too small to be of much commercial or culinary interest, unless you're a carnivorous fish. 

There are two main types (species) of crayfish/crawfish that are raised domestically ("farmed") here in the U.S. for food consumption. The most common variety is the "red swamp crayfish/crawfish" (e.g., http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Procambarus_clarkii_top.jpg):

The red swamp variety grows faster and gets bigger than the wild ones, but never anywhere near as big as lobster or even "Australian crayfish."  We raise the red swamp type in our pond.  The population is self-sustaining -- we drain the pond in the mid-summer to motivate them to build mud tunnels in which they breed; then we flood the pond in the fall (through winter) so they'll come out of their tunnels and forage on dead grass and other vegetation inundated by the water.  We catch them with bait (fish carcasses) in mesh traps in the late spring, once the water temperature warms up.

Red swamp crawfish are considered an invasive species in places where they aren't desirable (go figure!).  They are yummy, though.  Yes, they look like miniature lobsters; and, yes, if you just boil them plain (without the crab boil or veggies) and dip the tail meat in melted butter instead of cocktail sauce, they do taste a lot like lobster.

otter

P.S.:  Otters love to catch and eat crawfish!!!

Heheh.  It's like sashimi for otters! 

otter