Gender: Do not display
Hometown: Northern California
Home country: USA
Current location: Office chair
Member since: Sun May 15, 2005, 02:28 PM
Number of posts: 29,998
Gender: Do not display
Hometown: Northern California
Home country: USA
Current location: Office chair
Member since: Sun May 15, 2005, 02:28 PM
Number of posts: 29,998
I joined DU following the election melt down that produced the second George the Lesser Term of Office. I am outraged by war, by out-sourcing of jobs, by Corporate control of both parties, and enheartened by my fellow citizens who are bravely part of "Occupy!"
- 2014 (137)
- 2013 (146)
- 2012 (110)
- 2011 (5)
- December (5)
- Older Archives
I couldn't get my computer to play any Youtubes today. Since the youtubes site had played several youtube music videos for me Friday the 14th of Nov, this is confusing.
I went into control panel, found the sound icon, and clicked. I saw that my volume had been turned down, by looking at a volume meter.
I might hve done tthat late Sat night so as to not keep other people up in the household.
But when I clicked through the rest of the sound tabs, tryng to maximize the volume setting, I was told I don't have any sound devices connected to my computer. What gives?
I have a reliable Windows XP, and with the exception of my adding the Ad Muncher program to it about ten days ago, everything should be operating the same way it ws late Sat or early Sudnay Am. (As nothing has been done to my system since adding that Ad muncher thing-ee.)
Any help appreciated.
Posted by truedelphi | Tue Nov 18, 2014, 06:04 PM (5 replies)
MediCare for all means the government has a program they run, and it is considered a benefit to you the citizen. However there is that age restriction. A person must have trained the age of 65 to qualify.
MediCaid is a program that is offered up to poor people, and there is no age requirement.
You can be a single parent in your late teens getting MediCaid; you can be a fifty year old.
However, what is rarely told to people being offered MediCaid, is this: when you obtain a medical service through the umbrella of Medicaid, you are responsible for the expenses. Oh, not the day the services are incurred, but the day you die.
So if we had MediCare for all, I assume it would be paid by taxes. (Maybe by charging some of the larger Corporations some type of tax - look at how Verizon makes a gazillion dollars in profits and spends not a dime on Corporate tax!)
But when a 55 year old signs up for Medicaid, about six weeks later, they will get a brochure in the mail, letting them know that when they die, the state will audit their estate. So before your double wide can be left to your kids, the state needs to make sure that it gets re-imbursed for the monies that have been spent on you. That amount could d be $ 100; or it could be tens of thousands of dollars.
And that is why before we make the decision to choose MediCaid over MediCare, we need to consider whether we think it better to tax some large corporations rather than making Ma and Pa Kettle end up with nothing to give their kids and grandkids. My thoughts on this are that since every other civilized nation takes care of its people through a situation similar to our MediCare without forcing the citizens to re-imburse them, then we should too.
Posted by truedelphi | Mon Nov 17, 2014, 04:00 PM (1 replies)
There are certainly significant "positives" contained in the legislation known as the ACA.
Among them are the fact that there are no longer any Americans who can be told they cannot be insured due to a "pre-existing condition."
Many Americans who previously did not find insurance affordable now have subsidies to help them afford such. Due to the fact that such individuals number in the millions, it is not difficult to realize that many lives will be saved that would have been lost.
But the actual "reform" was much more of a give away to the biggest, already most profitable business in th USA, health care insurers, than being a net gain to consumers. For instance, many poorer individuals will strive to avoid using the insurance, due to the fact that for many folks seeking a cheaper premium, the deductibles are about half or one third of their income. ($ 5,000 is a lot of money if you make less than $ 60,000. And with rent and groceries and housing prices extremely high, that $ 5,000 deductible is a lot even to someone making $ 60,000!).
Let's look at one facet of what the public wanted and then explained that they wanted in almost every poll taken between 2008 and Dec 2009, an important facet that was not realized - the public option... According to the second article I link to in this OP, "This latter provision, one of the positive elements in Obamacare, was not forced upon the insurers; they themselves had proposed it. If they had not agreed to accept patients with pre-existing conditions, the law would have had to include a “public option” to guarantee that such patients could access health insurance, thus creating public competition that would give at least some consumers a non-private insurance option.
"Whether a public option would have constituted a meaningful alternative that competed with private companies would have depended partly on the details of its design; it is certainly possible that it would have served as a place for private insurers to dump
sick customers, making it expensive and unsustainable
(especially if the already-insured were not given the public
option, as seems likely). "
Edward Luce, “Gloves Off in Health Reform Battle,”
In any case, it would inevitably have been inferior to a
system. See Physicians for a National Health Program, “The
‘Public Plan Option’; Myths and Facts,” available at
Just who were the "stakeholders" that the Obama Administration was catering to? The following URL has an excellent thesis regarding the ACA, and defines the word "stakeholder" as used by the Administration. (Wanna guess the meaning of the word "stakeholder?" Let's just say it is not you or me.)
From the above linked to thesis:
The subsequent process by which the reform was shaped is
much clearer: the administration invited the key corporate
powerholders into the policymaking process from the
beginning. In the words of White House communications
director Dan Pfeiffer, the Obama strategy was to “bring every stakeholder to the table.”
Journalist Ryan Lizza makes clear that “stakeholder” referred to capitalist interests and not the general public, noting, for example, that Obama “sent his toughest political operatives — like Rahm Emanuel and Jim Messina — to cut deals with the pharmaceutical industry and hospitals.”
One major agreement that derived from this process of
negotiation promised the health insurance industry tens of
millions of new customers, who would be forced by the law to
buy plans from private insurers. In exchange, the industry
agreed to provide coverage to patients with pre-existing
In another major negotiation, administration operatives and
Democratic Senator Max Baucus (Chair of the Senate Finance
Committee) gained assent from the Pharmaceutical Research and
Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) to the proposed law by
renouncing the government’s power to negotiate drug prices
and import lower-cost drugs.
The final product was generally deemed “a good deal” by industry
insiders (the opinion of the senior vice president of PhRMA, which actually bought ads supporting the bill).
Except for the five biggest private insurers (Aetna, Cigna,
Humana, UnitedHealth, and WellPoint), most major players in
the healthcare industry supported the reform or at least did
not actively oppose it. This assent from the industry
— a reversal of its decades of vigorous opposition —
resulted from from the shaping of the reform into a familiar
form of corporate welfare: “a big injection of public subsidy to
expand the overall size of the US healthcare market,” as the
Financial Times noted.
The corporate welfare aspect of the bill can be clearly seen
in the negotiations with America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the main health insurers’ lobbying organization.
Though AHIP never formally endorsed the bill, it agreed to
the basic framework and did not mobilize its legislative weight against it. The law’s central component— the individual mandate
in exchange for “no pre-existing condition exclusions”—
was precisely what AHIP and the right-wing Heritage
Foundation had previously proposed, and which
Posted by truedelphi | Sat Nov 15, 2014, 06:19 PM (65 replies)
This map is making the rounds on social media - I found it on both DailyKos and Twitter.
But I have to ask, just who are the jounalists who have supposedly died in the MidWest? Somewhere along the way, these deaths slipped my consciousness... As in, I have never heard of them?
Posted by truedelphi | Wed Nov 12, 2014, 03:11 PM (3 replies)
It seems to me that when the change happened taking DU from DU 2 to DU 3, that the "treeing" capabilities got lost in the shuffle.
For instance, let's examine the following interchange from a DU'er named "Natasha"
> > An OP From "Natasha"
> > "I hate squirrels."
> > First Reply from "Boris"-- I agree. Let us shoot all of 'em, after we have had our borscht!.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Second Reply From "Bullwinkle"-- What is wrong with both the poster of this OP and you? Squirrels are adorable. And a squirrel is my best friend.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Third Reply from "Boris"-- If you meant to say "fried" and not "friend" then I agree with you.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Fourth Reply from "Bullwinkle"-- I would never say "fried" in reference to my best friend Rocky.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Fifth Reply from Home Cooking Dem-- If cooked properly, your little friend would taste like chicken. Which is totally YUM!
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sixth Reply from "Animal Lover"-- You people are sick.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Seventh reply From "Blogger"-- You are sick.
As we all know, the first few replies to one another always tree properly. But after a little bit, then the treeing no longer works.
In reading the above, you might infer from the DU user Id that "Animal Lover" is probably actually agreeing with Bullwinkle, but because at that point, the tree-ing capability of the DU software is not in effect, should this user have had a less descriptive user id, then the reader would not know if that poster agreed or didn't agree with Bullwinkle - as maybe they were replying to Home Cooking Dem.
And the seventh response from "Blogger" - is that poster replying to Bullwinkle, or Home Cooking Dem or to Animal Lover?
Anyway that fact makes it hard to carry on a decent conversation with someone about something, as once the responding back and forth goes on for a while, there is this further level in difficulty! Especially if others join in. Before we went from DU 2 to DU 3, the treeing capabilities were stronger, I believe. Therefore, what is a person supposed to do in terms of a conversation?
I encounter this quite frequently, and then of course, heaven help you should an alert be sent and you are on a jury trying to unscramble such a mess!
Posted by truedelphi | Sat Nov 8, 2014, 03:29 PM (3 replies)
In the forms of wter theft, and water pollution, continue on without penalty.
Nestle and the other big water theft artists have sweetheart deals that were conceived and acted out in total secret, and are stealing water out of pristine water aquifers all across the state.
Mainstream media doesn't mention it - why, they can't afford to lose all that nice ad money coming from the water bottling companies. But they will take the time to have nightly news spots about Ma and Pa kettle watering their lawn (Gasp, the horrors!)
Does Prop One take them to task? It seems to mee that only the citizens are required to pay for the wrongs of these energy firms. (And remember, when all is done and said, we still pay more at the pump than any other population of any of the other 47 states, here in Mainland USA)
And then there are the basic Big Energy "we will dump our fracking materials and sludge into yr aquifers" companies, who apparently are getting the usual free pass.
Must we citizens really pay to clean up pollution, without putting any provisons into place that will stop this practice of Big Energy dumping toxic fracking solutions into our aquifers?.
Posted by truedelphi | Sun Nov 2, 2014, 12:34 AM (0 replies)
Three Mile Island was the only nuclear accident that occurred inside the boundaries of the USA.
Or maybe I should say that it was the only incident preposterous enough that our Mainstream Media actually covered it. This coverage let us know that several things happened:
1) A partial nuclear meltdown occurred at the plant.
2) Due to the accident, there was a release of unknown amounts of radioactive gases and radioactive iodine into the environment.
3) It could have been much worse. Although three separate explosions occurred, even the most serious did not compromise the safety of the reactor as a whole, and so there was no "China Syndrome." Had the facility not had containment chambers that strictly adhered to code, the outcome might have been far different.
The accident was caused by human error coupled with design flaws relating to the status of a stuck valve and how the control panel's lights let operators working the night shift think things were one way when they were actually another.)
I recently came across a discussion I had downloaded from TinyRevolution.com, and this presents some things to think about.
URL link to article:
April 02, 2013
Sure, This One Goes To 11; But Can You Turn It Down To 0.11?
By: Aaron Datesman
From Datesman's article
I've previously written that our regulatory standards for exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation are based upon extrapolations downward from high doses. The framework is called the "linear dose model". You could say that I'm not fond of it. Perhaps my fundamental complaint (among the very many there are to choose from) is that the regulatory and scientific advisory bodies that utilize this model seem willfully blind to the idea that a "model" is a guess, rather than a law.
Since the linear dose model in reality is a guess, for its predictions to be credible it is absolutely necessary continually to audit the model to verify its accuracy. In the world we inhabit, unfortunately, this does not ordinarily happen. Instead, government and industry point to the predictions of the linear dose model to argue against any possibility of harm, forestalling meaningful audits of the model's validity. The circularity of the logic is perfect.
Nevertheless, the 1979 disaster at Three Mile Island was severe enough that a meaningful audit (albeit incomplete and not comprehensive) was actually performed. The data uncovered by that audit demonstrate convincingly that, for at least one type of exposure to ionizing radiation and one deleterious health outcome, the linear dose model is incontrovertibly incorrect.
In 1997, Steve Wing at the University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill published a re-analysis of health effects due to the Three Mile Island nuclear disaster, covering just the population in a ten-mile radius around the plant through the year 1985. The article, "A Reevaluation of Cancer Incidence Near the Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant: The Collision of Evidence and Assumptions", appeared in Environmental Health
The rest of the article should be read to take in the full implications of the audit.
The tales and graphs presented in this information can all be found at the Link above.
Posted by truedelphi | Thu Oct 30, 2014, 11:06 PM (1 replies)
Congress, you immediately r ealize how some other vested intermediary/authority was given the power in that statute.
Of course, the third way Democrats want all of the loyalists for the party to believe that Congress needs to do it, but Congress is very conservative. (Hmm, what a coincidence!) Only something like 3 to 15% of all Congress people believe in re-scheduling marijuana. (Whereas the majority of polls that involve us citizens show over 50% of all Americans want pot re-scheduled.)
Anyway, since you won't take the time to read the actual law, here it is in a nutshell for you:
The 1970 Controlled Substances Act, which created five tiers of restricted drugs, clearly states the Attorney General may "remove any drug or other substance from the schedules if he finds that the drug or other substance does not meet the requirements for inclusion in any schedule."
If a substance is banned by international treaties – as marijuana is – the law grants the attorney general the power to place it "under the schedule he deems most appropriate."
Also, you might want to ask yourself why Congressional critters don't want to approve of marijuana? Well, the influence of Big for Profit Pharma and For Profit Prison holds them to honor the quid pro quo of the campaign contributions. And that is in the better of the situations. Some of the Big Pro Illegal Drugs situations include members of the Bush Crime family, who for decades has made a fortune on drugs being illegal. It is also true that with Mexico owing one third of its economy to illegal drug monies, often one of the cartels will clean up some young yuppie-like family member and then ship him here to the states, and then that person opens up a bank. From there, that person can support anyone who is virulently anti-drug, as they run for Congress.
Supposedly Obama is a "Constitutional Scholar," so when even he urged that Congress be given a chance to re-schedule cannabis, it had to have been that
A) he is a stupid person, who cannot understand the legal jargon of the law Congress passed, that is The 1970 Controlled Substances Act
B) he owes someone something to keeping marijuana illegal. Think about how heavily the Big Financial people invested in his campaigns. And think also of how these same institutions were caught red-handed laundering tens of billions of dollars for the cartels, and how Holder gave the executives a free pass to stay out of jail, proclaiming these institutions too big to fail.
But on the flip side, some young Afrian Amerian who gets caught with a single joint in their pocket in some American city might spend as much as 47 days in jail!
Corruption, thy name is America!!
Posted by truedelphi | Wed Oct 29, 2014, 04:59 PM (0 replies)
I refuse to listen to the horrid Fox Sports Announcers for one more World Series game.
I understand that the local radio station, 680, KNBR, will stream its live broadcast, but they are eight seconds before the TV coverage.
How can I delay the streaming? Any possibilities out there?
My system is Windows XP, Mozilla IP, lots of added in storeage (I think 60 Giga)
I have only Radio Shack here locally to help me.
Posted by truedelphi | Wed Oct 29, 2014, 04:13 PM (2 replies)
Incidents, here are the actual statistics from CNN:
U.S. deaths 1980-2008 (from the Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics)
Overall - Almost one out of five or 16.3% of murder victims were killed by an intimate partner.
Women - Women account for two out of three murder victims killed by an intimate partner. The number of women killed by an intimate partner fell from 43% in 1980 to 38% in 1995, but rose to 45% in 2008.
Men - The number of men killed by an intimate partner fell from 10.4% in 1980 to 4.98% in 2008.
A lot of other statistics relating to domestic/partner victimization in the above article.
Posted by truedelphi | Thu Oct 23, 2014, 02:37 PM (0 replies)