sorry, point being, we can all afford computers.

Perhaps, but it was just a news letter. Anyways, the least expensive house in bounds for the school would be about $400,000 (and that would be a 1 BR condo that is boarded up and has a high association fee).

uh, except the unique transaction number?

I knew someone who worked for a marketing firm and he said, "we either track your purchases through your loyalty card or your CC number, it's your choice if you save the money or not." Perhaps they store a hash of the CC number, but it's a unique key for you, rest assured.

Any system that relies on a number that you cannot hide remaining private is doomed to failure. But that's exactly what we have.

Try Discover or AmEx. They both own their own networks and so the website is current almost instantly. Visa is owned by no bank, so everybody has to wait to get the info. This also lets Discover and AmEx find fraudulent charges much faster and alert you to them right away.

I switched when I had a friend get their debit card stolen. She said the cops pointed out to her that if you only use CC, then while you're in the dispute process you have all your money whereas if you use a debit card, somebody else has your money while your in the dispute process. It's a big fucking deal when it's time to pay your rent/mortgage.

I felt that way until my child's teacher decided FB was the right way to disseminate information about classroom activities.

I walk my children to school past a "When Children Are Present" sing. I've never seen a single driver obey the lower speed limit. So if that's appropriate action, then yes, I'll bet it can do that. I'd take just obeying the posted normal limit.

Cold, I don't consider part c plans (your first link) to be fraudulent but I'm amazed to see a Republican back plans that have these characteristics:

* Part C plans cost 15% more than Medicare
* There is no evidence that Part C plans are better than Medicare

Part C could have been interesting if the first line was different. What if they cost 10% less and there wasn't evidence that medicare was better? Hmm, maybe? But the Republicans didn't set them up that way. They set them up to cost more. The best thing that can be said about them is that they offered free health club memberships. But then we'd have a Republican claiming that the government should be spending $1,500 / year to get seniors health club memberships. Are you seriously going to say that?

The fraud prevention has to do with Medicare fraud being rampant. The law was setup, by congress, so that providers had a right to participate in the programs. So Medicare would shutdown a fraudulent biller and they could apply to be covered the next day. Then, by law, Medicare would have to accept them into the program (it was a right). Now, Medicare has more power to prevent this type of fraud. This is a good thing. Don't you agree?

I'm unaware of the right abandoning Obamacare. It's a great idea. It used to be that if you wanted to start a business or continue to run a small business, you would have to go find health insurance on a market that would discriminate harshly against you. Now, you go to one big market and get good rates. So small businesses are easier to open and more affordable to open. It's really just trying to prevent a Democrat from getting credit for something good that is making the right hate Obamacare, not the policy, which is great.

It was a European trainer jet.

I'm talking about these items as weapon systems. I also doubt that they jet is at all recent (or if it is, that it could fly in US airspace).

I don't think that heavily armored vehicle without a functioning gun on the front qualifies as a tank. I also can find nothing about privately owned air-ready F-16s, but even then, it would have no weapon systems. And I was talking about these systems as weapons, not expensive toys.

Blame: I'll take it. The vast majority of the bill is intended to reduce fraud in medicare (and has done so). The parts that you think of as Obamacare are working out very well too.

But, I do admit that the intellectual conception of Obamacare came from the right wing think tanks. And that makes sense, it's ultimately very libertarian / free market oriented. They just couldn't get it implemented.

I agree. CDC advises health professionals who are free to not give a fuck what they say and do their own thing. Regulations on doctors in the US are essentially zero and will stay that way. In the end our health system depends on doctors to do the right thing and while most do, some don't.