=93A new study shows that toxicperfluoroalkyls, which are used in surface protection treatments and coatings to keep grease from leaking through fast food wrappers, are being ingested by people through their food and showing up as contaminants in blood.=94
I thought the refrigerant FREON was banned because it contained Fluorine, so how come it=92s still being used in Perfluoroalkyl. Is this hypocrisy or what?
one should probably investigate what the differences are before asking this inane question. freon is chlorofluorocarbon. that isn't even remotely like perfluroalkyl, even though it has fluorine in it. there are many items with fluorine in it that are not comparable to freon.
the interweb broken where you are today?
Ask and you shall receive:
Mandrake, do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk... ice cream. Ice cream, Mandrake, children's ice cream!
You know when fluoridation first began?
Nineteen hundred and forty-six. 1946, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.
Well, I, uh... I... I... first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love.
Yes, a uh, a profound sense of fatigue... a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I... I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence.
I can assure you it has not recurred, Mandrake. Women uh... women sense my power and they seek the life essence. I, uh... I do not avoid women, Mandrake.
But I... I do deny them my essence.
Uh, yeah...
Fox has the top twelve cable shows. The 11:00 p.m. RERUN of the O'Reilly Factor has more viewers than the TOP show on MSNBC!
'Course that's mostly for "opinion" and "commentary" shows. Still, unbiased observers rate the Fox NEWS broadcasts the most "fair and balanced." There's little evidence of liberal (or conservative) bias in their straight news programs.
I don't think you'll ever hear a Fox news anchor have to say: "The facts were wrong, but the narrative was correct."
?A new study shows that toxicperfluoroalkyls, which are used in surface protection treatments and coatings to keep grease from leaking through fast food wrappers, are being ingested by people through their food and showing up as contaminants in blood.?
I thought the refrigerant FREON was banned because it contained Fluorine, so how come it?s still being used in Perfluoroalkyl. Is this hypocrisy or what?
Everything is safe if you have the funds to purchase those who determine safety.
O'Reilly does it regularly. Even Hannity goes after the weenie Republicans. ;-)
Um, harry, chorine and sodium are not "locked" up in (table) salt. Just add water.
Thanks for the links. I won't bore you with links to alternative views. Suffice it to say: "You show me yours and I can show you mine."
## And guess what? They were correct.
(Wall Street Journal, December 29th) "On [last] Sunday, Robert Pear reported in the New York Times that Medicare will now pay for voluntary end-of-life counseling as part of seniors' annual physicals. A similar provision was originally included in ObamaCare, but Democrats stripped it out amid the death panel furor. Now Medicare will enact the same policy through regulation."
Uh, yeah. This may be proof of intent but has no bearing on the quality of the results.
I can find no mention of the Sherrod tape being shown on a Fox news program. The controversy was reported (everywhere) as it developed, but showing the tape? I don't think so.
Res ipsa Loquitur.
I don't think so, mainly because the video was never shown on a straight news program.
In the case of the Sherrod tape, O'Reilly and others apologized for showing it. In their defense they showed the ENTIRE TAPE as it was given to them - they did not edit it in any way.
Or so they say. (CNN et al showed the SAME recording as FOX.)
O'Reilly (sort of) broke the original story (and apologized the next night). CNN, however, aired the same clip the same night as O'Reilly (Anderson Cooper 360). The next morning all three cable news networks reported the story. Sherrod, herself, was on the CNN show, American Morning.
It's irrelevant whether Soros is the puppet-master behind Huffington. In my view, castigating Huffington because of its funding or NewsMax or Fox or anybody else has nothing to do with the truthfulness of their reporting.
The things - the reports - should stand on their own.
Right. You'll get Sodium di-hydrogen mono-chlorinated oxide.
Psst! Flourine is used in making Teflon. Keep it to yourself.
Aside: You remember the "Noble Gasses"? Those are gasses that do not combine with any other element (Helium, Neon, Argon, etc.).
One scientist didn't believe that. He pumped Xenon and Fluorine into an evacuated vessel, heated the sucker up to a goodly degree for a while, then opened the can.
A yellowish-powder was all that was left. Analysis showed the powder to be Xenon hexafloride.
Total cost for the experiment had to be less than a hundred bucks!
The Periodic Chart has been revised. Check yours.
...another goalpost gone missing.
No shit, harry? No one else suspected that "the classic movie Dr. Strangelove" was Hollywood fiction.
Umm, Obummercare doesn't start paying for anything until 2014.
Oh, it's already started, but nothing happens overnight.
It'll surely put a large dent in it. We'll be bankrupt.
No, they are making judgments on the efficacy of treatments, not the viability of individuals. "Experimental" means something.
Certainly not! It *WAS* a rejection of Obama, and Obamacare, in particular.
Huh? "Sufficiently abated"? It stunningly accelerated, under absolute Democratic control!
The "financial controls" implemented by the Democrats will do *NOTHING* to avert the next (or current, for that matter) crisis. That wasn't the point.
In article ,
This BS. Everybody on the MCare Advantage would have to go elsewhere. So a lot of this is transferring the same dollars around hoping people get lost.
This is a insurance company subsidy used by
Everything I have seen indicates that the single biggest money batch comes from changing Dr.'s and hospital reimbursments. Of course this is also the largest part of "magic money". I call this magic money because it is just supposed to appear. The major reason this is MM is because a day or two before the bill passed with all of these"savings" in doctor's payment the COngress voted to suspend a 30% cut in Dr's payments. The reason it was so big was because that is the cumulated "cuts" since that had not occurred since the "Sustainable Medciare Growth formula had been passed in 1997, and overruled every year since. (Another piece of irony, the SMG formula was part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997). Reducing medical costs isn't a politically viable option. If anything, the hooha around the healthcare bill last year shows that EVERYBODY now not only views healthcare as a right, but an absolute right to however they much that they want at no (unhidden) cost to them,
In real life? Probably about as much as the Dems, meaning little or nothing.
But still a lot less than before with NO coverage whatsoever. Also, if you followed the debate at the time, the hole was largely put in to placate a couple of Democrats who were concerned about not "paying for it".
In article , bud-- wrote:
Revisionist history. The surplus had peaked by FY 2000 and was almost gone by FY 2001 (starting a full month before the election). So Bush did not inherit a surplus and there is nothing to indicate that the debt got paid off. Clinton just happened to be around during the Greenspan-Gates bubble (Greenspan for the large length of time with easy money, and Gates as a proxy for the great (one-time) changes in productivity brought about by computers.
Nope. There were three major tides in the S&L. The first was during the inflation before the regulators (mostly Dem at the time) got around to letting S&Ls do things to balance the fact that before they had to loan long term for mortgages, but got their money most short term. WHen inflation took off S&L were saddled (by regulation) with income from long term mortgages that were nowhere near the interest rate needed to pay out what they needed to in interest. Second was when Congress screwed around with taxes (big surprise there). There were some major building projects that had been made "viable" by tax rules, they were more or less shelters. The tax laws were changed retroactive, and all of a sudden these project were no longer viable on paper. (So, two debates, whether Congress should have played with tax laws and whether banks should have loaned based on tax related issues instead of actual economics). The third wave was when Congress played with the rules again and again retroactively. In order to get good S&Ls to pick up bad ones, the appropriate regulators came up with "regulatory good will." This was an asset that the acquiring banks could use to offset some of the bad loans that they were taking on at the behest of the Government. Otherwise, the acquiring bank couldn't take the bad loans and stay solvent. Essentially the regulators said "We know you did not make this bad bet and since we appreciate your taking it (and the bad S&L) off your hands, we won't punish you. Congress later came around legislated the ending of regulatory goodwill and put a whole bunch of S&Ls out of business literally overnight. BTW: A whole line of cases where the courts said that Congress did indeed change the deal the federal government had made, that they had no right to, and that the S&Ls closed were owed billions of dollars in damages.
McCain was the only GOP member of the Keating Five, he was the only one of the five who agreed to testify for the plaintiffs in the ensuing civil trials. The Ethics Committee ruled that the involvement of McCain (and in the spirit of full disclosure- John Glenn) in the scheme was also minimal, and he too was cleared of all charges against him.
Passed Congress (as required) by large (bipartisan0 votes in both Houses. 90-8 in the Senate and 362 to 7 in the House (BTW: of the people currently pontificating on how bad the bill was, only Barney Franks voted against (and did so in the House Committee, and the first House vote). Pelosi and Reid both voted to pass. BTW: If you go look at most of the bills that people point to, the same voting pattern holds. That idiot econ columnist for the New York Times tried to put it all on Reagan (big surpirse there, not) pointing to the repeal of some law (forget which one). At the time, I went to Thomas.gov and looked it up. It passed with only 5 dissenting votes in the House (Barney Frank again, I don;t like the man's politics, but you have to admire his steadfastness to his ideals). It was passed by unanimous acclimation in the Senate.
Yes those Evil Republicans once again "sneaking" things passed the Dems. Just read the damn things or shut up (and that goes for both sides of the aisle).
Bipartisan agreement (grin)
But the record is also ripe with indications that governments manage to mess it as bad.
Death panels exist and have for years. Heck, look at Oregon's Medicaid program. They are the poster children for "good" health care rationing. They have a certain amount of money to spend, a list of priorities and when the money is gone it is gone. Whenever an Oregon health reporter gets lazy and wants an easy tear jerker, they go find a cancer patient. If you don't have above a certain likelihood that you will survive five years, you don't get the treatment. Then the Oregon reporters note that the Evil Pharmaceutical companies step in and give the person treatment.
Air force I might give you. It can be argued the only thing that they called for was a standing Navy. Of course, the other side is that they did not specifically ban and did give the Commander in Chief wide latitude on purpose. Regulation of airwaves is a bogus argument (no matter who makes it) since again, there was quite a bit of lattitude in allowed under the Interstate Commerce Clause.
No, it doesn't. You could have just as easily set things up as they are now with groups. If you have insurance (or had within a certain period) you are covered immediately. If not, then it gets sticky, but seems at least as good a way to cover people. Actually in MA under their current program, there is a line of studies showing that people are coming into and out of the program as needed. Seems that enforcement in real life is not viable.
Yet there are a long line of studies (from at least the mid-80s) that show people with regular insurance use the ERs just as much, if not more in some series, as those without insurance or with MCaid. The main thing with ERs is open later so they don't have to miss work.
What we have now is not even remotely related to free markets. First of all, as has been shown by the Annual Health Care Expenditures study (put out by the Office of Actuary of Medicare but covering everything.. BTW: The new is due out in a couple of weeks), you don't pay all that much of the costs. Over the last 20 or so years, this study has shown that less than 20% of all healthcare costs come from pocket (and that includes the out-of-pocket expense of the premiums). Nothing that is subsidized oer 80% by someone else is remotely free market. Add in the fact that payor of services (your company or federal programs) is divorced from the user of services (you and me) and makes the problems even worse. Which, is further exacerbated by the fact that since the subsidy is so heavy, we over consume to "not leave anything on the table" at the end of year. There are more reasons why I keep saying we should actually TRY free markets before we shut down. Lord knows, there is nothing remotely resembling a free market in what we see, now.
Revisionist history yet again. The Dems major problems were within their party. They couldn't get enough Dems to vote for it. They had an absolute, filibuster-proof majority for most of the first two years and couldn't get it through. The buying of the Dem Senators was to get the Dems to vote for it, not because of anything the GOP was doing.
See above. Unless you are going to send the IRS guys out to bring in people and talk some sense into them, the everyone having insurance is just a pipedream. MA shows us that.
Interesting studies suggest that the CBO doesn't do all that good of a job estimating. Back at least as far as the original MCare which was past 10 year spending within 6 years.
The FBI was given enough money a few years ago to hire a bunch of agents specifically tasked to MCare Fraud. Not a lot of good luck so far. This is one of those things that the politicians have been chasing since at least the mid-70s with little or no long term success. Too much money floating around not to be syphoned off. This failure is pretty much bipartisan.
Another untruth. There is a myth floating around that Mcare has this really small number for administration. This is taking the part that Mcare spends on its own staff, Congressional workers, some research and looking over the shoulders of the Fiscal Intermediaries (FI). The FI (EDS, the Blues, etc) are the ones that do the heavy lifting of actually paying and processing claims and doing most of the reports. If you factor in what the FIs are paid, the low overhead largely goes away.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.