RockneDrive

I can tell you aren't Catholic.

I'll drink to that!

http://www.popartuk.com/g/l/lg3675+monkey-with-cigar-student-advisors-office-poster.jpg http://www.popartuk.com/g/l/lg3675+monkey-with-cigar-student-advisors-office-poster.jpg

I noticed that too. I think in some ways, being as reckless as he was in making big hits, he got his bell rung a time or two and it effected his play. But there is no question that he regressed the last year or two. That was painfully obvious.

LOL! Heck of a way to lose a chubby in a hurry huh?

RASMUSSEN: Obama Approval Index: -18 Strongly Approve 25% Strongly Disapprove 43% Total Approval: 45% Gee, I wonder why.

http://www.fotosearch.com/bthumb/RBL/RBL008/b11831.jpg

http://www.southbendtribune.com/article/20100120/SPORTS13/100129936/1021/Sports Snippet: http://www.southbendtribune.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=SB&Date=20100120&Category=SPORTS13&ArtNo=100129936&Ref=AR&Profile=1021&MaxW=290&MaxH=240

Actually TD is correct. All Christians have been hypocrites at one time or another. But so has every other non-christian, it's just that many of them don't know it. All fall short of the glory of God. No one is righteous, not even one! Everyone sins. Breaking just one little part of the law is like breaking all of the law. So both Christians and nonChristians have broken every commandment when they have sinned. And everyone has sinned. The problem with many Christians is that they don't recognize the sinfullness of sin IN THEMSELVES. If a Christian tells you that they don't sin or have never been a hypocrite, they are deceiving themselves, the truth is not in them, and they are making God out to be a liar.

And you aren't?

In what way are you socially liberal?

Cafeteria Catholics?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_T5gzRpc1uZ4/SvmIYuQqr5I/AAAAAAAAACY/wpV5xPUTpuY/s400/wapoobamabudget1.jpg http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/wapoobamabudget1.jpg

Yep, because he had a republican congress keeping his spending at bay.

You suffer from cognitive dissonance.

Feminists howl about government getting involved in their "reproductive rights" and say the government should mind its own business but come running to the government for abortion money when they made bad decisions in their lives. You can't have it both ways. Back-alley abortions? LOL! Where do you get this stuff?

Damn is that good or what? You nailed it!

http://www.animated-avatars.net//uploads/687257454.gifCan I be one?

Any person or business who is breaking the law or not living up to their contractual obligations should be liable in a court of law. Tort reform seeks to limit the amount of liability where too many frivolous lawsuits are brought by ambulance chasing trial lawyers, who are the ones who are so greedy that they are bankrupting the system just to line their pockets. And often juries don't apply the law as they are instructed and end up awarding ridiculous amounts of money for questionable reasons. It's too easy to make a fast buck on the backs of companies or doctors who often haven't done anything wrong. Reform is necessary. Democrats and trial lawyers prefer the status quo. Billions could be saved and costs of health care could go down if reforms are made.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649 Fact No. 1: Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers. Fact No. 2: Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians. Fact No. 3: Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries. Fact No. 4: Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians. Fact No. 5: Lower income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians. Fact No. 6: Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K. Fact No. 7: People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. Fact No. 8: Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians. Fact No. 9: Americans have much better access to important new technologies like medical imaging than patients in Canada or the U.K. Fact No. 10: Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations.

The Texas Experience Prior to Tort Reform 85% of suits filed closed without payment to the patient. The average verdict quadrupled in 10 years. 1989 - $473,000 1999 - $2,049,000 In 2000, 31 out of every 100 physicians were sued. By 2002, so many physicians had left Texas it ranked 48th of 50 for patients per physician. Texas: 152 physicians per 100,000 people U.S. Average: 196 physicians per 100,000 people 158 of 254 counties did not have an obstetrician. Large hospital systems spent up to $400 million each year in legal/malpractice fees. The Texas Experience Following Tort Reform in 2003Physicians returned to Texas. By 2006 Texas had risen from 48th to 42nd in the national physician to patient ration. By 2007 nearly 600 OB/GYN physicians returned to practice in Texas. The cost of malpractice insurance declined by an average of 21%. Using its medical liability savings, Christus Hospital in Corpus Christi opened a Diabetes Excellence Center and a clinic for the indigent. Using its medical liability savings, Driscoll Children's Hospital in Corpus Christi opened satellite clinics in the border cities of Brownsville and McAllen. Using its medical liability savings, Kelsey-Seybold Clinic in Houston installed an electronic medical record system to improve patient care.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/30/AR2009073002816.html Even more compelling, expert health courts would eliminate the need for “defensive medicine,” thereby helping to save enough money for America to afford universal health coverage.Defensive medicine — the practice of ordering tests and procedures that aren’t needed to protect a doctor from the remote possibility of a lawsuit — is ubiquitous. A 2005 survey in the Journal of the American Medical Association related that 93 percent of high-risk specialists in Pennsylvania admitted to the practice, and 83 percent of Massachusetts physicians did the same in a 2008 survey. The same Massachusetts survey showed that 25 percent of all imaging tests were ordered for defensive purposes, and 28 percent and 38 percent, respectively, of those surveyed admitted reducing the number of high-risk patients they saw and limiting the number of high-risk procedures or services they performed." "Defensive medicine is notoriously hard to quantify, but some estimates place the annual cost at $100 billion to $200 billion or more. Quantification is difficult because defensiveness is now embedded in the culture of American health care; it’s hard to separate the financial incentives from the distrust of justice. Yet every physician, and most patients, can give examples. In a recent letter to the Wall Street Journal, a Texas doctor described how, since being unsuccessfully sued in 1995, he has “doubled and tripled the number of tests and consultations that I order.”"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/30/AR2009073002816.html Health-care reform is bogged down because none of the bills before Congress deals with the staggering waste of the current system, estimated to be $700 billion to $1 trillion annually. The waste flows from a culture of health care in which every incentive is to do more -- that's how doctors make money and that's how they protect themselves from lawsuits. Yet the congressional leadership has slammed the door on solutions to the one driver of waste that is relatively easy to fix: the erratic, expensive and time-consuming jury-by-jury malpractice system. Pilot projects could test whether this system should be replaced with expert health courts, but leaders who say they want to cut costs will not even consider them. What are they scared of? The answer is inescapable -- such expert courts might succeed and undercut the special interest of an influential lobby, the trial lawyers. An expeditious and reliable new system would compensate patients more quickly and at a fraction of the overhead of the current medical justice system, which spends nearly 60 cents of every dollar on lawyers' fees and administrative costs.

"The British system is most restrictive, using a black-box actuarial formula known as "quality-adjusted life years," or QALYs, that determines who can receive what care. If a treatment isn't deemed to be cost-effective for specific populations, particularly the elderly, the National Health Service simply doesn't pay for it. Even France—which has a mix of public and private medicine—has fixed reimbursement rates since the 1970s and strictly controls the use of specialists and the introduction of new medical technologies such as CT scans and MRIs. Yes, the U.S. "rations" by ability to pay (though in the end no one is denied actual care). This is true of every good or service in a free economy and a world of finite resources but infinite wants. Yet no one would say we "ration" houses or gasoline because those goods are allocated by prices. The problem is that governments ration through brute force—either explicitly restricting the use of medicine or lowering payments below market rates. Both methods lead to waiting lines, lower quality, or less innovation—and usually all three." WSJ

Democrats stand for the following: 1. Higher taxes. Never look first to cutting expenses. Always increase budgets in amounts greater than inflation and raise taxes first and ask questions later. 2. More government regulation and interference in people's lives. 3. More subsidies for people who don't work. 4. Punish people who work hard to become successful. 5. Reward lazy people who contribute little-to-nothing to society. 6. Reward bad behavior: can you say bailouts to finance companies, banks, and individuals who bought more home than they could afford and who lived beyond their means? 7. Lust for control over businesses and individuals. Can you say GM and socialized medicine? 8. Inefficiencies in everything they stick their noses into. Always spend as much money as you can and never be good stewards of the people's money. 9. Deficit spending and raising the national debt. Assume Keynesian economics and expect a return on government spending to increase economic activity by a factor of greater than one. That way we can spend trillions of dollars per hour of taxpayer money and get an economic benefit in excess of the amount spent. Forget that Keynesian theory has never worked as Obama's stimulus has already proved.