Wabash82

Your article in your prior post was about the kid who is 16, which, yes, makes him a minor.

Or... he is a minor, so they are showing some restraint. The boy who did the school shooting in Fishers a few years ago, as far as I am aware, has never been named by the media because he is a minor.

At 37, Mayor Pete's on the cusp, but I'd wager money that a majority of American males under the age of 30 don't know who Alfred E. Neuman is (or didn't know before this incident.) They may have recognized his image as something they've seen before, but they wouldn't have put known his name. The advent of the digital era too greatly fractured and siloed media markets, and Mad Magazine's "bandwith" has been awfully narrow for a few decades now. Indded, as my brother noted to me the other day in speaking about his sons, and their male friends, who are in the mid- to late-20s demographic: "These kids had no idea what it meant when I asked where they stood in the 'Mary Ann versus Ginger' debate!" If this generation is ignorant of something as seemingly culturally bedrock as a "Gilligan's Island" reference, how can we possibly expect them to know of Alfred E. Neuman? In any event, I'm guessing this was not gospel truth for Mayor Pete -- I mean, come on, the dude will read Norwegian novels in Norwegian, he's got to have glanced at a Mad Magazine or two in his time -- but was a "retort" gauged to (again) emphasize to millennials that Trump's a really old guy, and he isn't.

Are you suggesting that you NEVER are out past midnight anymore? You do not EVER go out for an evening with family or friends where you are stay out until the early morning hours? If so, I think you part of a fairly small minority, at least for people below the age of 75. There is no indication that these judges make a habit of partying to all hours of the night. All indications are that it was a special occasion for them: a chance to go out with some friends with whom they were attending the same out of town conference. Your comment also implies certain facts that I have not seen reported. The news reports said they'd gone to some bars prior to the incident, but I don't recall seeing any news reports indicating that either of the judges was believed to be intoxicated. Maybe I am the prude here, but I typically drink in moderation when I am out on the town ("bar hopping"), here in Indy or anywhere else I may be. Having a good time doesn't equate (to me) to drinking to the level of being intoxicated. Likewise, staying out late with friends doesn't equate (to me) to being out looking for trouble; it usually equates to having an enjoyable time with enjoyable company, such that no one's in hurry to see the night end. And as for the "fighting": if some guy physically assaulted me on the street, I would seem reasonable for me to try to defend myself. I don't think it would strike me as completely accurate to accuse me of "fighting" in public in that situation; more like, protecting myself in public from a criminal. The only part of this that makes me cringe is that they were apparently trying to get into the Red Garter prior to this incident. I'm not a fan of married men -- really any men, but especially married men -- going to strip clubs (or going without their wives, if they're into that sort of thing 😉). But I don't reasonably expect everyone to follow my position on that, especially since strip bars are legal establishments.

Now you've got me blushing. We introverts just can't stand being the focus of attention, can we, Muda?

I am too introverted to answer questions....

Who'd a thunk it?!

I am this way, too -- use it in "personal" settings only around people I know won't be offended by it. That's just my upbringing and age. But it is important to appreciate that there are plenty of words that folks of our generations use today in regular conversation that had a primary or strong secondary sexual meaning for prior generations, and were considered by them to be as vulgar as the F-word is to us. Frequent usage led them to become innocuous. "Bloody" is the usual example from British English -- it was considered so filthy as recently as the 1920s that newspapers would not print it. "Scumbag" is another example: in the 19th century you'd have been slapped for calling someone that (i.e., a used condom). Even in my lifetime, the sexual connotations associated with "that sucks" or "you suck" have pretty much faded way, and it is treated as simply a synonym for "bad". Our kids' kids will likely view the F-bomb the same way. I can tell you from first hand experience that in Ireland, the F-word has already become just another common adjective used in almost all social settings. The good news is that our kids' kids will have invented some new obscene words (or converted other existing ones into filthy ones) that their kids will shock and annoy them by saying...

Howard gets Patton and Mussolini confused all the time. He has both of their Rookie Year playing cards in his Authoritarian All-Stars collection....

FYI, the Washington Post link in your post to the Federal Rule is out-of-date. Here is a link to the current version of Rule 6: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_6 Like Rush, I'm not an expert on the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, so I'll leave it to the courts to decide this. However, for edification purposes, I've described below the two main legal arguments I've seen in news articles in opposition to Barr's contention that Rule 6e completely prevents him from disclosing the info to Congress under any circumstances. -- e.g., that he cannot disclose it to Congress even if the district court that oversaw the Mueller grand jury entered an order giving approval. Again, I don't have sufficient knowledge of this area of the law to express a truly informed opinion whether the below arguments are "correct", or if Rush's view is "correct." I am just presenting them in response to your question, and in the interest of being "fair and balanced", as they say): 1. There are two exceptions under 6e that would allow Barr to disclose the grand jury matters to Congress, either on his own authority or upon petitioning and obtaining an order from the D.C. District Court that oversaw the Mueller grand jury. One exception allows disclosure of grand jury info to other governmental authorities when the info concerns counterintelligence matters (one of Mueller's mandates was to investigate Russian interference with the 2016 election). The other exception applies to disclosures made "preliminary to" another judicial action. (The theory being that disclosure is needed to make preliminary determinations re whether to impeach or indict of Trump.) 2. There's already a 1974 case decision from the D.C. District Court (court that oversaw Mueller grand jury), which held that a federal district court has the inherent authority outside of Rule 6e to order or permit the disclosure of info from a grand jury under the court's supervision, if the grand jury's investigation is completed and the public's interest in having access to the info in that particular case outweighs the reasons normally cited for keeping grand jury info secret. That 1974 ruling resulted in turn over to Congress of the report from the grand jury that investigated the Watergate incident. The fact that the Trump administration elected to assert executive privilege over the unredacted Mueller report implies that they don't see Rule 6e as a clearcut or ironclad block. The assertion of executive privilege is a second level "protection" that only matters if Barr has leeway (or could be compelled) under 6e to turn it over to Congress.

SF -- Totally unrelated to the content: Dear God, man! We already have Muda cut-n-pasting entire dissertations into "his" posts, don't tell me you are going to start copying him in in doing that?! I'm quite willing to read a few paragraphs of your or someone else on the forum's original "take" on an issue. But if all you are doing is repeating some other person's "take", can't you just give us the link and say something like "ditto"?

Re not getting special treatment at Easter (or at other Christian holidays): doesn't your school have a "Spring break" (and a "Christmas break")?

In terms of our stated objectives, we "won" back in December of 2003 when they pulled Sadaam from that spider hole.

I think your description of the conflict in Iraq is a bit off. (That is understatement.) During the time frames that the U.S. military actually fought them directly, al Qaeda and other insurgent groups were effectively driven out of the country. (Leading to their involvement in the Syrian civil war, the rise of ISIS "caliphate", etc, etc.) So I believe you are misrepresenting history if you are suggesting that there was ever anything close to a military "stand off" between the insurgency and the U.S. military in Iraq during any of the discrete periods of time in that conflict when the U.S. military was actually attacking them and not refraining from offensive action due to political considerations. And as a side note, the most effective weapon the insurgents had in Iraq was the IED, not an automatic rifle. It's a few years old, but as this USA Today article noted, as of 2013, IEDs had caused between half to two-thirds of the U.S. casualties. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/3803017 So no, in case that was not clear, I am not in agreement with you. I cannot think of an armed conflict in which a civilian population armed with just guns was able to defeat militarily a government-sponsored force armed with modern military weapons (e.g., tanks, artillery, armed helicopters, war planes, etc.). Revolutions in the modern era have been won in one of two ways: (1) the insurgents ultimately acquired, through foreign interventions or the defection of government military units, weaponry and firepower much closer to that of the government-sponsored military they are fighting and won on the battlefield; or (2) the majority of the population engaged in essentially peaceful protests and the military forces of the government were unwilling to slaughter them, and "surrendered" to them.

Depends a little on who you mean by "we". In the case of judges (and lawyers) they are held to a higher standard under rules of professional/judicial conduct that direct judges to avoid personal conduct that appears improper and would could erode confidence in the integrity of the judiciary. Depending on the facts that ultimately surface about what they were doing that morning, and how the physical altercation that led to the shooting got started, they could face disciplinary actions, with the "we" who holds them to a higher standard being the Indiana Supreme Court's Disciplinary Commission. But, honestly, I suspect the Commission would be reluctant to pour salt in the wounds anytime soon for these guys, who obviously paid a heavy price for their night out on the town. So, as long as there is no evidence that they broke the law in connection with this incident, I suspect that the Commission would likely just issue a private reprimand (with a suggestion to perhaps get alcohol use counseling, if they had been drinking.) If "we" means Americans in general, yes, we should hold elected officials to a high standard of conduct, but we do not do so for the same reason most all of us also don't hold ourselves to the standard of conduct that we should.

Other than the "holier than thou" types, I'd think most Hoosiers would not be troubled by the mere fact that they were taking advantage of a trip to the "Big City" to have some fun. I'd be more concerned, if I were a Clark County voter, that two guys had made it to their late 40s without appreciating the dire danger they were exposing themselves to by scarfing down sliders after several hours of drinking....

Yeah, because as ISIS recently demonstrated, simply having automatic rifles immediately makes you a dire threat to overcome the U.S. military....

That’s fine. I also sometimes have an objection on principle to proposed policies or actions of our government even though those policies or actions might well be in my personal best interest, financially or otherwise. I guess I wasn’t clear as to your position because the article that you quoted at the beginning of this thread focused on questioning the practicality (economic viability) of Sanders’ proposal, rather than presenting an argument against it based on principle.

Don't know for certain if there are such hospitals, but I suspect that many inner-city urban and some rural hospitals are pretty close to that, simply due to the nature of the populations they serve. But I am also having a little difficulty understanding why you are so concerned about the prospect that some hospitals that can't compete at lower margins will close, with the tradeoff being consumers' overall cost for health care will be lower? Isn't that the exact outcome you've told us would result if health care was a free market system?

You are not following. Sanders is talking about applying Medicare rates to what is currently the private market segment, which would allegedly result in a reduction of rates in the private market segment by up to 40%. The companies I was referring to in the part of my post you quoted are companies that already are solely in the Medicare or Medicaid market segments. So they wouldn't see a 40% cut under Sanders' supposed plan.

For some of them, yes, they are only in those market segments and they presumably make money in them, or they wouldn't be. (Because many health care entities are organized as non-profits for historical reasons, it may be technically inaccurate to discuss whether they make "profits", but the point is that they have earned sufficient revenues in those markets to cover all their costs.) Many of the large managed care companies who are active in both the private market and the public/single-payor market segments, like Anthem (big in Medicaid) and UHC (Medicare Advantage), are presumably making money in the public segments, since they have been actively pursuing business in them, and have been quite willing to exit "public" market segments where they are not making money (e.g., ACA exchanges, like Indiana's). The "I'm gonna wipe out the insurance companies" is Sanders campaign rhetoric, akin to "I'm gonna build a Wall across the southern border and Mexico will pay for it!" Or "I'm gonna cut taxes without increasing the deficit!" They are slogans meant to express commitment to a general policy position -- immigration, illegal and legal, needs to be substantially cut back; the economic benefits of tax cuts outweighs the economic detriment of growing the national debt; high administrative costs have to be addressed to get U.S. health care costs in line with the those of the other advanced nations). Only the very naive would take them as actual, concrete beliefs or courses of action for the politicians who espouse them....

Well, since they are operating in single-payor markets now (Medicare and Medicaid), I'd assume they are making a profit in those markets, or believe they can make a profit in them. What specifically about Mr. Sanders' plan do you see as changing that?

Uncertainty is inherent in today's technology-driven world, and folks who have trouble dealing with change are going to get left behind. I completely changed my career at age 56, so I have a fair amount of confidence that I'd adapt again successfully, if necessary, to whatever changes lie ahead in the health care world. But as we see curtently with Medicare and Medicaid, there are still lots and lots of opportunities in a single-payor system for private companies.

I have it on good authority from a high ranking official in the Sander's campaign that I would be appointed as Chief Apparatchik for the new Frankfort Soviet, responsible for the re-education of recalcitrant medical providers and any (surviving) known Libertarians in the glories of the single-payor medical nirvana. So I think I'd come out okay....

I appreciate the differences between Medicaid and Medicare. I work in the health care industry. No offense, but unless you can provide more specific facts/evidence beyond just your opinion as a consumer, I am unwilling to assume that $3,000 did not cover the hospital's actual costs for the services it provided. There is no question that many private insurance companies reimburse for some/many services at rates higher than those under Medicare and Medicaid, and that some physicians who have a sufficient base of private insurance patients have the luxury to not accept Medicare or Medicaid patients. But that is not the same thing as saying that those physicians could not operate at a profit -- and still make a very good living -- from the reimbursement rates paid by Medicaid and Medicare. Those providers are simply in the position of being markets where they can "sell" their entire limited inventory (their time) at a higher price. I suspect the dentist's comment re Medicaid reimbursement for transportation is an exaggeration. I believe that the reimbursement for a filling under the Indiana Medicaid fee schedule is around $110. Nearly all transportation services for Medicaid members are now provided through contracted brokers, and while I am not privy to the State's contract with its broker, I sincerely doubt the State is paying the broker at a rate that would allow the broker to pay the taxi companies it subcontracts with a hundred plus bucks for a trip to the local dentist. Because transportation is still a relatively new benefit under some of the Indiana Medicaid programs, brokers do still face network adequacy challenges in some rural areas of the State, which may force them in "one off" situations to pay a provider (e.g., taxi company) to send a driver to a far away location to cover a trip that the broker does not have local resources available to cover at that time. In those unusual cases, the broker may pay the provider (who is doing them a solid) at a higher rate -- while the broker takes a loss -- in order for the broker to meet contractual obligations to the State. To my knowledge, the various "Medicare for All" plan being floated are all modeled on (as the name suggests) Medicare single-payer system, not the VA's single-payer-and-(mostly) single-provider model. While I have not followed the troubles of the VA system super closely, my understanding is that the complaints are associated with issues that arise primarily because veterans relying on VA health benefits must go to VA-run facilities for treatment, and those facilities are often outdated and under-staffed.