Big Diesel:

If you read and UNDERSTOOD this document: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/quarterlyprov...s/cms1321p.pdf

You are in the wrong profession. You should be at Harvard Law School teaching Contractual law.
Can you see why you might get different charges for the same services?

To which page, paragraph, line, and column are you referring?

 

I nodded off after the first 25 pages....

 

Again, I must explain the English language to you!

This message board IS the "small sampling" of American culture, with concurrent "small samplings" of both Conservative and Liberal opinions.

From THIS board alone, I recall about 3 or 4 different posters who, at one time or another, have opined that we should just NUKE the Middle East and be done with it.

 

Lets see here Big D 19 of the 20 9/11 HIJACKERS WERE FROM SAUDI. THE UAE IS OUT OF OIL AND CONVERTING ITS SELF TO THE LAS VEGAS OF THE MIDDLE EAST ASAP. Israel is the fuse on the powder keg that and our support of it.

 

Israel is the fuse because everyone else over there hates them due to the fact that they are not islamo-facists. :roll:

 

Correct Twilight and the fact they are outnumbered what about 100 to one and the best weapons the Soviets could provide still could not beat American weapons and their training. Considering Eygpt got tired of seeing their Air Force go down in Flames or be blown up on the Ground I do not blame them for being the first to recognize Istaels right to exsist. Syria lost almost 1/2 their Air force in the Beka Valley in 1980 and did not get a single Israeli plane Why even have an Air Forve it they are that bad.

 

At least now I know that your "sampling" is completely baseless and has no accuracy whatsoever. :lol:

 

Greg said:

I USED to believe this, and would like to still. But, when I Listen to the daily fare on FoxNews or Patriot Radio, and am constantly bombarded by the statements of the Moral Majority, echoed by the mainstream of the Republican party, I can't help but WONDER where the more moderate Republicans have gone? It seems it has been a decade or more since I heard a Republican official spout anything BUT "morality" or "Liberal bashing." While oil prices skyrocketed, credit ballooned, pre-emptive war was rationalized, and personal liberties were curtailed in the name of "defense against terrorists," it seems their main objective has been to stack the courts in an effort to overthrow Roe V. Wade or to DEFINE a "marriage!" By Fozzy's OWN definiton.... this is NOT the purview of the Federal Gov't!!

With the possible exception of a ban on "assault weapons," I don't see where the Dems are responsible for this. Isn't it BUSH who is finally placing restrictions on MPG for SUV's?? When did a Dem ever tell you you couldn't buy an SUV, or a HOME, or a smut mag? And, BTW, which party is responsible for the fact that you can't BUY American made pharmaceuticals that were shipped to Canada, and could be bought cheaper FROM Canada?

No, you don't. You see, the Republicans ARE for allowing ONLY those specific circumstances. Dems want it to be a Woman's choice, WITHOUT such "restrictions." In the post following yours, Gordo said it should be a STATE's RIGHT, not the Feds. Really?? What gives a STATE anymore right to control the personal decisions of its citizens than that of the Feds? This is a MORAL decision, and therefore should NOT be "legislated."

Personally, I am for a FIRST trimester cutoff. If a woman doesn't know she's pregnant within 3 months, or can't MAKE the decision within that time, then I feel the child should be birthed. I am TOTALLY against this "partial birth abortion" practice!! Abortion as birth control? How often does THAT really happen? Have you ever been THROUGH an abortion with a wife or mate? It is not something done so easily. MOST women, who've EVER had one, don't want to do it again! (even if they believe it is their right.) The idea that all but the most CALLOUS of prostitutes would use this method as birth control is just ANOTHER example of the exaggerated B.S. that is spouted by Conservative talking heads! :roll: However..... I DO see the point, and agree with it in principle, that taxpayers should not be forced to pay for these procedures, especially since it DOES conflict with the morality of many!

EXACTLY!!!!

I think this whole issue has been blown out of proportion by the Moral Majority, and again.... is keeping us from REAL government and issues! What gives the government the right to determine WHO lives with WHOM? I think homosexuality is an abomination, if not to GOD... then to Evolution! :wink: But, I don't believe it rises to the level of deserving of discrimination. If the TAX CODE weren't so specific about what determines a HOUSEHOLD, then there would BE no issue! There would BE NO reason for them to demand "marriage" status, or even "UNION" status! [And then it should matter to NO ONE, whether two of the same sex pay a preacher of any/some credential to perform a ceremony of their VOWS to each other.] Fact is.... it is unfair to deny "couples" of any persuasion, the tax benefits, and MEDICAL/INHERITANCE benefits that are enjoyed by traditional/Heterosexual "companions."

Considering that MOST households today ARE "two income" families, we could do away with the whole debate by doing away with the "joint filing" provisions of the tax code. Make ALL people file and pay taxes on an individual basis.... ESPECIALLY since these days they are given credits for having kids anyway! Let ALL citizens designate the "heir" of their choice without undue or discriminatory provisions, and all would be equal. Therefore, the institution of marriage goes BACK to the purview of the CHURCH, where it belongs, and ALL citizens enjoy equal treatment "under the law."

I don't think ALL churches are against the Death Penalty. I'm pretty sure my father supports it. The Bible DOES say, "an eye for an eye," even though it also says "judge not....." Again, though..... the REAL problem comes from determining our CIVIL laws by religious principles! I, TOO, am for the death penalty! However, I would like to see SOME "conditions" set forth that would protect us against taking INNOCENT life! Since DNA has become so important in REVERSING so many cases, perhaps it should take a larger role in DETERMINING such cases. What I mean is..... we should be sure, NOT beyond a "reasonable doubt," but beyond ANY doubt before we take a life. I"m not saying DNA MUST be present in all cases. When a cop WITNESSES a person taking another life, there should be no doubt.... little discussion.... short rope!!

I think you misspoke about the Big Brother thing. THAT seems to be more of a Republican issue these days. I know...Conservatives are supposed to be AGAINST such government intervention, yet it is THEY who are demanding/supporting it in the name of "protection" against the evildoers in the Islamic world! :roll: I think you meant BIG vs. SMALL government. I can't argue with that! I would like to see smaller government, too! But, I (like most Dems) feel it is unfair to do away with all social programs JUST so the government can give MORE tax breaks to those who don't NEED them.

But, I agree that social programs have gotten out of hand. So have tax loopholes for big business. To argue against a federally mandated MINIMUM wage, while allowing big Oil companies to "earn" RECORD profits (during a recession,) and FAIL to prosecute under Windfall Profts laws, is "selective" government at BEST.... and more appropriately called CRIMINAL. I'm not against Conservative values! I'm against "class warfare," and I see this as being the INTENTION of the Republican party as surely as many of you see Socialism as the intention of the Dems.

For the record, I realize that many of these policies do not make the "average Rebublican/conservative" all that RICH, and therefore I don't place you (collective) in the same "class" as the super rich. But, it is your VOTE that enables these policies, and they are against my desire.... NOT for Socialism.... but for a more equal playing field for ALL Americans!

I was raised about the same way, Greg. I worked THREE jobs (at one time) before I even got to High School!! Not that I really NEEDED to, but because I was "enterprising." But, I have to comment on your first sentence. Surely, you don't believe that EVERY child has an equal chance to "make it." You think Bush could have gotten where he is without being born with a silver foot in his mouth? :lol: Again.... I believe that social programs have gotten out of control. But, the PRINCIPLE is righteous! That those who are disadvantaged SHOULD have "some" help to get started on the right path. I don't have ALL the answers.... and I certainly don't believe what we have today IS the answer. But, when they speak about the American Dream, they are referring to the underprivileged. The "upper crust" don't see it as a "dream." They see it as....wait, here it comes..... their ENTITLEMENT! [The ROOT of which comes from the Land Grants and TITLES of nobility that came with the earliest settlers of this country.]

Notably missing from this list is..... to provide TAX LOOPHOLES for the super rich, so they can get richer! Heck, according to this list, they are not even responsible for CREATING JOBS! THAT would be the responsibility of a Free Market! So, WHY give tax breaks to big business in HOPES that they will create jobs with them? The fact is, they DON'T!! They ship them offshore if it makes a dollar more per share for their stockholders and CEO's!! (while POCKETING the tax savings!)

The American model of a Free Market Economy is wonderful IN THEORY. But, it FAILS to work because of the GREED of the "elite class." And when that happens.... SOME would say that the role of the government is to step in and REGULATE these corporations so that they are FORCED to participate in protecting the rights of the working class to the "pursuit of happiness" and a reasonable existence.

I accept your admonition, Greg! As was said about me.... it IS hard to be "civil" when replying to SOME who show such callous disregard for their fellow citizens in general, and for those who would defend them in particular. It doesn't HELP that every cycle the Political process is spread over longer periods of time. We get no break anymore! It is a shame that our country has become so polarized politically. And for this I must agree with some who feel it is due to the machinations of the 24 hour news programs.

But, they did not create the politics that have divided us. For ME.... it was the criminal intentions of Nixon to hold on to power for the "conservatives" with NO regard for the will of the people (mirrored by Dubya's electoral antics!) For my Conservative brothers.... I'm sure it was a steady dose of Socialistic programs for those who CHOSE to "live off the dole," exacerbated by the dalliances of ONE man, who failed to uphold the MORAL standards of his Office!

The difference.... to ME.... is that of Morality vs. Constitutionality. I'm SURE some will disagree with me. I can agree that the MORAL decline of our country is perhaps equally important as the erosion of our Constitutional protections. I agree that the Constitution does not give our citizens a right to a FREE RIDE..... but neither does it give some the right to impose THEIR religious philosophy on the rest of us. This is NOT "one nation under God." This is ONE nation of laws for ALL people, to be FREE from religious interference with personal freedoms! And moreover, it was designed to THROW OFF the feudalistic chains of Old England, and to give everyone an equal chance at a decent life. I do not SEE that equality being practiced nor espoused in this country today.

Since I wll SURELY be flamed once again for MY views, regardless of how conciliatory I try to make them, I may as well add THIS....

NONE of us here ARE a "founding father," and therefore cannot hold their views in reality. We are all 3rd or 4th generation decendants, at best. But, SOME of you were born and raised in the "Red States" of the Midwest or West. Though surely you are not all RICH (or you wouldn't be truckers! :wink: ) but MANY of you are decendants of the pioneers who settled those areas, and are what passes for "landowners" who've become the "gentry" of our country. How do you think your ancestors GOT that land? Not to take away from the sweat of their brow, and spartan existence when starting out..... but in MOST cases, the land was given FREE for the taking.... BY our government. Without such "social programs" of the time..... many of you would now be the decendants of "indentured" mill workers in the Northeast! Now, I'm sure not ALL of you came from landowners in the Midwest/west...... but THOSE who I "rail" against ARE!!! If the SHOE doesn't FIT you..... then I am not TALKING about you!

Personally, I am of the blood of pioneers who settled Idaho.... AND of "Revolutionary" soldiers and Militia from the Carolinas. My desire for FREEDOM runs strong within me. My LOVE for this country is no less passionate! And my desire for the EQUALITY of Man, guaranteed to the extent it could be by our Constitution and our conception of GOD, is the driving force in my life.

Some of you have children..... I have IDEALS. If that is a pathetic existence, so be it. My existence is not costing you ONE THIN DIME!

Hobo

 

NO.... you still know NOTHING.... or NEXT to nothing! :shock:

My statement concerned a FEW posters with a certain opinion, and I said that it was ONLY taken from a "small sampling" which this board is.....!!

I made NO reference to a STUDY, or a SURVEY. I used a word found in the dictionary to define a "portion of the whole." If you "sample" 20 wines at a wine tasting, and find 3 or 4 of them to be BITTER, you are using correct English to say that your opinions were based on a "small sampling" (as opposed to the thousands of wine brands available in the World!)

I KNOW you just like to argue with everything I say, REV, but you are making a fool of yourself to do so! To further argue your point, only makes you a bore!