You wouldn't count the destruction of New Orleans as "major"?

Hank, Penske -- What's the Difference?
 

You're shitting us, right? I couldn't find it in a quick google search, but then again I'm distracted today.


If he does, I think they should resolve it with a cage match between the two of them, possibly using chainsaws.

Two Reps Enter, One Rep Leaves
 

I would support this - just stick one chainsaw in the cage (along with one mace, one spear, etc.), and see who gets there first.

But here's the source, As cited by wonkette .

So how about Massachusetts?
 

Anyone else fascinated by the legislation mandating the purchase of health insurance in the state? I'm still wading through the bill, but it looks pretty damned impressive.

So how about Massachusetts?
 

Ty should be all over that.

I assume they know the demographics, but my initial reaction is that the people most likely not to buy insurance are also the least likely to be filing tax returns (not because they're evaders, but because they have low income).

That said, if, as the NY Times reported, the problem is well-paid young males, then this should solve that.

Hank,

You really look much better as an elderly woman. Just a thought.

sometimes when you're reading a post do you have mini-strokes so you black out for a line or two?

Hank (thoughtful and concerned) Chinaski

Put aside who's in charge for a minute - do you really think it's acceptable for our national incident management system to be composed essentially of the following?

1. Organization
We should come up with some kind of organization to handle emergencies.
2. Communication.
People at different agencies and levels of government should be able to communicate. We should come up with a plan and some standards for how to do that.
3. Maybe we should come with some other stuff, too.

I'm not being critical here of New Orleans. I'm being critical of the fact that DHS hasn't put into place a working framework to deal with emergencies at all.

DHS and FEMA have had years to come up with a basic structure to use to handle emergencies, and the best they've come up with is "we should come up with something."

Here's what I want to see:
- Communications standards.
- First responder checklists and protocols
- Command checklists and protocols
- Clear instructions for organizing and handling an emergency, including protocols for deciding who is in charge, when, for what, and for how long.

I've written disaster recovery and incident response plans. For the most part, they don't address particular emergencies (i.e. do this if a terrorist attack, do this if a tornado) because such planning is ultimately fruitless. Instead the create a framework to deal with almost any emergency. It's not rocket science, but it does take a little work and a fair amount of thought.

Good plans are structured as organizational charts and cheklists. Bad plans talk about structures without actually creating them, so that in a time of emergency, nobody has a chance of figuring it out. NIMS is a bad plan.

The worst part is that restructuring the government to create DHS appears to have destroyed what functional systems that did exist. I don't know what the system was like before the DHS era, because it wasn't of professional interest at the time. But it didn't seem to be this broken.

So how about Massachusetts?
 

As I said here before, I have questions about how you make this work, and why it would work better than mandating health coverage by forcing people to pay for it through their taxes. I'm hoping RT will figure it out and explain.

So how about Massachusetts?
 

Well, it's because Hank likes his health plan and doesn't want anyone to fuck with it.

Buy, or else
 

Lovely.

The pimp hand of State of Taxachussetts slaps its citizens once again.

So how about Massachusetts?
 

It sounds like exactly what I asked for. now if they'd vote out Teddy Kennedy i might consider opening a second office there. Chinaski & GGG- Attorneys at Law!

Buy, or else
 

I suspect that they'll be paying far, far less than anyone else in the country for healthcare, and its insurers, providers and employers will be happy too.

Buy, or else
 

I thought you advocated the Ownership Society. No?

Buy, or else
 

Right now, without the bill, there is a sense in which Massachusetts already has universal health coverage paid for with some combination of tax dollars and private money; this just rationalizes the system.

If someone is uncovered right now, they are still able to get free treatment (though not for all that ails them) at tax-exempt hospital facilities; to the extent the patient doesn't have funds to pay for the care, they go into an uncompensated care pool that is funded by levies on the more profitable hospitals and by tax money - that is, the uncompensated care adds to the cost of other people's healthcare and comes out of taxes.

The basic idea behind this bill was to get all the interested parties in a room to hash out how the uninsured were covered and to rationalize it, providing them with fuller coverage while cutting back on some of the costs. There's some new money coming from taxes, but much of that is spent on tax reduction for people who are covered. Most of the new money will come from the third party payors, but if it works there will be a long-term cost savings from the rationalization (less emergency healthcare, more preventative care = less total cost). There is a spirited debate right now, however, over whether the uninsured really do use ERs to a disproportionate extent, and if the traditional wisdom is wrong, there will be higher premiums partially offset by increased tax deductions.

Note that the bill is going to be signed by a Republican Governor currently running for President as a right-wing nutcase.