SQL Server has become a common way to describe a database system. As stated before, SQL is the structure of how data in a database is retreived. SQL statements are commands given either at the datatbase command prompt or from other sources like websites to view/retreive data.

If you want to play around with one, mysql is free, but you'd better have an idea what you are doing with your system so you don't screw anything up.

There is no comparison there. We are entirely different nations leading entirely different lifestyles. THAT has everything to do with health. There is no other nation on earth like us so there is no way to say "well it worked for them..."

Oh, I'm not worried. I actually asked them to fire me because I'd pretty much have to quit for the scholarship and I knew what a draw I was being on the books. They're giving me about 75% of my salary for it anyway. I had a contingency plan. It's those without one that I feel bad for.

One week unemployed now and loving the free time lol. I was not replaced, I was far too skilled for my position. I worked at a brake, tire, and alignment shop and I'm ASE Master Certified and until last October, had an enhanced Smog License. However, when my pay is double what anyone else is and I'm doing the exact same job (i.e. no work in my specialties) then I'm the biggest line item on the books. shite happens. I'm not pissed and I totally understand why it happened. I'd have done the same thing. If business does not pick up, they will closed by summer because they will be so far past due on bills, nobody will give them credit to get parts and tires. It's been slow before but never this bad and never this long. Even one man down, I went by on my now daily ride and they were still sitting around with no work.

I'm just collecting my unemployment until my scholarship kicks in this January. Then I get a couple grand a month from the feds to go to school 20 units a quarter. Sure, they own me for two years afterward, but don't they own us all?

Then I commend you guys for actually doing what is right and not just right for yourselves. especially since you are such a union-friendly state as michigan.

try gallup. they show more against and it beats the spread (MOE). The more time goes on, the less people like this.

Ok, here's my breakdown of how I see this plan:

VIOLATIONS OF PRINCIPLE
Essentially, the fact that insurance companies cannot turn away people with pre-existing conditions and at the same time, cannot charge them more because of their risk violates every principle of the definition of insurance. I agree that turning them away is wrong, but the government is forcing them to accept risk that is guaranteed to lose them money. That is going to have two effects: (1) The rates of everyone necessarily have to go up; and (2) Those who need major surgeries but only pay $10k a year even will be at least a 400% loss for the company with those that require major cancer treatments and multiple surgeries up to the range of even a 5000% loss. This ultimately will kill off many insurance companies leaving the public option with a larger market share.

THE PUBLIC OPTION
There will be no competition with the public option. The private sector can't because, unlike government, the public sector can run in the red for centuries and still be around. we have had a budget deficit for well over 100 years and there is no reason to expect this program to do otherwise.
The other downside is that the public option (which, for obvious reasons, must be cheaper than every other offering on the market today) is essentially a price ceiling. This will clip a lot of smaller companies out of competition and close their doors. Sure, the Kaisers and Blue Crosses of the world will likely stay afloat at first, but you will lose most of the small companies within a few years.

THE REQUIREMENT FOR INSURANCE
I don't think I've seen it mentioned at all here and it kind of surprises me. There is only one reason for requiring everyone to have insurance: cost. There is no way to pay for this program unless everyone pays for insurance. This is due to the first section above: the whole idea of the program violates the definition of "insurance." You are going to have a lot of middle aged and older people on this plan that are going to cost a lot of money. There are three kinds of people that are uninsured: those that can't afford it, those that can't get it, and those that think they don't need it. Guess which group is largest.
By requiring all the healthy individuals to get insurance, you offset the costs. if you have 8 million people (a random number for example only) paying $2,000 a year but going in for nothing but doctor's visits and physicals, you just made yourself $16 billion. That is partly how they plan to pay for this: by forcing the healthy to pay for the sick like any other insurance plan, only this time, you cannot opt out by not buying insurance.

TAXATION OF EMPLOYEES/EMPLOYERS
This is another simple one. I don't know about you guys, but I think the government has taken enough from me. When I had a job, my plan cost $350 a month. That's $4000 a year that I would be taxed on or another $1,000 a year from my paycheck (as that would have been in the 25% bracket). The great part is, I'm by no means wealthy ($40k gross) but that would represent a 20% increase in my federal taxes. Tell me that won't have an impact on my weekly budget.
As for businesses and this "fee" for not providing coverage; any fee is going to cut into profits. It has been some hard times and businesses are squeezing as hard as they can right now. If there is nowhere else to cut, guess where the cuts are going to be made. If you have 20 workers and fire two of them, the other 18 are going to work a lot harder.



I know there's more, but I just woke up and can't think of them right now. I'll add more as I remember.

It's not so much that as that when they get back from winter recess, it's campaign mode. this is why it is being rushed because right now, a lot of dems are having trouble and at this point, one lost seat loses the whole schebang. Especially since this time, there is no presidential election to rally the youth and minorities like last go-round. Plus, there is no cooling off period if a dem votes yea and their constituants are pissed. if it's done right after elections, there's far more time for the goldfish to forget.

Basically, the longer it drags on, the harder it will be to pass. I say good riddance.

Two questions though:

What industry are you in?
What is the legacy expense for your company?

If you are in a high profit-margin industry or one that requires a skill (i.e. welders) then you can be unionized, get higher wages, and likely still compete. I'm not against unions so much as I'm against their protection. If they stood on their own, so be it, but this crap that you have to join a union if one exists is bull.

The other point is that GM has huge liabilities to retirees. They essentially would never have to save a dime in their lives and would be set once they retired after 20 or so years. When you make more than the average household, I think a little responsibility for your own retirement is in order. I've never made as much as the average UAW worker and even at 19 I was adding a few thousand to an IRA. I try to max my contributions every year actually.

This analogy is kind of what I'm getting at. Sciences are only as exact as their inputs. It is impossible to know what every person at every moment is wanting so therefore, economic theory cannot be an exact science such as chemistry. If you run the exact same model every 5 minutes, you will always have different outcomes because the data input is always changing. You cannot predict it's exact location, but you can get a damn good idea of where it's headed.

The problem with you analogy is that you can see two, four, or a hundred balls on the table. With economics, you cannot see the scams that go on beneath the surface. That is why you will never predict these outcomes.

Besides, when I say I think more people need economic theory 101, I do not mean that they need to learn to predict anything, only a general knowledge of how taxation, regulation, increased costs, and inflation change the supply and demand curves so they understand how these are related.

The thing is, I feel a lot of those jobs exacerbated the problem. By bailing them out, you really didn't do anything but put a band-aid on it. So long as the UAW has the government in its pocket, the auto industry in America will never be competitive.

prove it.

hmmmm... never thought of that. I'm just going to shut up because I'm really showing my ignorance applying our standards to these other nations.

Don't go talking bad about Chuck Norris. He could punch you from where he stands lol.


While I'm all for personal liberties, the right to own a gun, and the right to practice religion as you choose, i do not believe in forcing these on anyone (namely the religion one, the other mentioned and many others have to be forced on those that want to limit liberties).

While our nation was built primarily by protestants, it was also founded on the principle that no religion would be forced on the people. That means freedom to be islam, christian, hindu, buddhist, whatever. Being that most of the original colonies were built by those fleeing religious persecution, it was a logical step.

And the Maj. Hasan thing was total bs. that was not due to his religion but due to obvious failures within our military. Part of freedom and liberties are being able to call shenanigans when you see them and not have the fear of being called a bigot. political correctness is what caused that.

I agree that liberties and freedoms are falling, but if you can read the Patriot Act and tell me that it didn't take freedoms, I'll laugh in your face. Both sides have been taking our liberties for years, just in different places.

This I can definitely agree with. I just don't feel that preservation of your culture should require you to pick on those that are different. It's not like these buildings will change the entire lifestyle of the nation (though it will change the landscape a bit... that I can see an issue in but I believe in the rights of the individual so I'm a little biased here and still find this wrong.)

As for the military issue, he is a commander in Chief with zero military experience. Our last president had the same credentials. However, our last president didn't hesitate to trust those in the battle as to what was needed, almost too much but either way.

The generals have stated we need more or we can't do this. Putting lives at risk over indecision for a month is unacceptable. I can understand milling over it, but there are about 5 men you need to listen to and every one of them has a few stars. No politicians, no lobbyists against the war or for the defense companies.

As was stated before: if this was the "right" war (though i think that has passed), then you need to give them what they need to prevail or start bringing them home.

I'm going to have to disagree. I think the job of the president is to lead an work for the people. A lot of his "hard work" has been flying all over the country trying to campaign for healthcare or back in the day, the stimulus. He hasn't passed all that many executive orders that are being followed through (I commend him for Gitmo but it was simply a political move and I knew that wouldn't happen) or having major impact. He needs to lead, not campaign.

I also don't like that 3/4 of his trips have been to blue states and largely, those that were closer in the election. If it is for America, he needs to reach out to everyone, not just states where he is more likely to get a warm reception.

If it's really what we need he shouldn't have to convince us. He needs to just step up and do it. Think of the argument in Plato's Republic how we always don't know what is good or bad for us, even though the perception says otherwise.

If the decision really will be best for us, he will be looked at as a great leader, willing to make the tough decision and be held accountable for the result. Even if he got booted because of it and it worked afterward, he will be looked back on in admiration and there will be regret at removing him from office.


I want him to succede, however, I do not see anything in his policies that are going to well in the long term. It's all about the here and now and ignoring the long-term growth.

The Presidency has become so political and about "the legacy" it has lost direction as to what is best for the people. Even if what you do has you labeled a Carter-esque failure (only without the real failure) but you laid the groundwork for true economic and social growth, you have done your job correctly. That should be all that matters, but it has not been that way for over a century.

How is this seeing the light again?

I'm not religious by any means, but I do support the right of others to be. How the hell can this be deemed acceptable? I mean, it's just architecture and in America and other non-muslim modern nations, it is rare to have a call to prayer that is not inside the mosque only over a sound system.

another one who gets it.