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

When I was young I still wanted to have healthcare, as I was smart enough to know that accidents happen - and worse than having an accident is then not having healthcare to pay for the results of the accident.  I don't think kids these days are stupid, but the insurance companies and the for-profit hospitals are far more interested in making money for their shareholders than they are in doing their basic business of providing healthcare for people who need it.

In Washington state naturopaths, acupuncturists, massage therapists and other alternative medical practitioners are covered under certain conditions, which makes having insurance even more attractive.  Prior to the decision that alternative medicine must be covered I knew a fair number of people who would opt out of insurance, as they wouldn't go to doctors of western medicine.  Now, I don't think I know anyone who opts out for any reason other than an inability to afford it.

One friend of ours recently told us that her Dad has found that he'll only have to pay $30 per month for insurance once the ACA kicks in.  Now he can't get it due to pre-existing conditions.

I think that it is time to get a name for Cruz that is reflective of his behaviour:  Humpty (as in Humpty Dumpty) comes to mind.   "when I use a word' Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone.  "It means just what I want it to mean-neither more nor less."  

Great pictures Blue, also loved the poem.

Robert Reich was interviewed by Bill Moyers this week, and has a fascinating new documentary showing now: http://inequalityforall.com/

For education purposes since this would probably never be mentioned on Fox News. 

So the hostage taking by the GOP of raising the debt ceiling has begun - (paying debts we have already incurred and has nothing to do with the Appropriations and Funding process).

Here is one item the GOP wants in exchange for preventing the USA credit rating from going down the tubes.  They would like to get rid of Net Neutrality.  Not sure what this has to do with raising the debt ceiling, nevertheless, it has always been one of their pet projects that has ended up on the ransom list.  It does nothing for the Average Joe using the internet, but allows telecommunications companies to control what and how fast something travels across the internet to you.  Here is a list of how it would affect us as consumers:

What are some ways I might be affected?

Providers can restrict or disrupt your access to web content and applications in a variety of ways, including:

• Discriminating Against Competitors' Services: A provider could make sure that preferred content or applications load faster and more efficiently while competing services are slow or spotty. That would effectively create a tiered Internet - with a fast lane for those who will pay, and a slow lane for everyone else.
• Limiting Diversity of Content: A provider can enhance its own web content and services by featuring prominent menus, program guides, start screens, etc. while systematically excluding competing content.
• Favoring Commercial Services: The nonprofit and noncommercial sector could be distinguished from the for-profit sector of the online community in terms of services offered, and would suffer because they cannot compete in an environment where they have to pay for better service.
• Restricting Internet Telephone: Services that allow you to make low-cost, long-distance telephone calls using a high-speed Internet connection (sometimes called VoIP, or Voice over Internet Protocol) are becoming more and more popular.  But traditional phone companies who are now getting into the Internet business don't want to lose their customers to Internet phone companies like Vonage and Skype.  However, there is nothing stopping them from blocking their competition from using their network.

Why would the GOP want to get rid of Net Neutrality?

$$$ for big-monied interests - par usual.  Can you just imagine what sort of news you would get if Fox was involved with delivering pipeline services?? LOL

Why do Democrats want Net Neutrality?

It’s precautionary,” Sen. Al Franken (D-MN), a prominent supporter of net neutrality, told Ars Technica over the weekend. “It’s a very clear path if you have paid prioritization, you have a fast lane that content providers can pay for. If that happens, then it’s kind of all over.”

“So this is about keeping the Internet the way it is,” Sen. Franken said. “That’s what net neutrality is. It’s about maintaining the architecture we have, which has created all this innovation and which doesn’t favor the big corporate interests over individuals and small innovators, keeping it the free zone that it is.”

Thanks Jackie - Kieth Olberman says it so well.  Community.  If it doesn't work for everyone, it doesn't work for anyone.

Compromise is not a dirty word - and Nick Kristoff in yesterday's NYTimes was magnificent.  Still think Tom Friedman said it all.

Hard to come to terms with people who would rather DESTROY, than create and build.  Worse than sad...

Me too. I think it is entirely too bad that people must be identified as belonging to one thread or another and no discussion is allowed. It is a clear reflection of the great divide in American politics (the same one that is creeping northward).

My suggestion is that everyone agree to use only proper names (eg, not Obummer, not Rethuglican) or have their post deleted in an attempt to begin respectful discussion. I note that Popular Science magazine has banned all comments because of "trolls and spambots".  Pity. http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-09/why-were-shutting-our-comments

Lassie, Blue, I posted the article from NPR about Popular Science a few days ago.  Here it is again, along with the graphic from NPR (not my addition):

Article I ran across today from NPR.  Pretty pathetic, aren't they?

'Popular Science' Shuts Comments, Citing Internet 'Trolls'

by Steve Mullis   

<!-- END ID="STORY-META" -->