PhiLandShiR

I have issues with this statement.
No one can leave the Philipines for the US unless they have a visa or a US passport. You can exit the US on any passport you want.
If you enter the Philippines on a Philippine passport and try to leave on it you will be questions as to where your visa is to gain access to the US.
I know this as we did this exact thing.
When entering, we showed my daughters Philippine passport and when we exited on the US passport, we were questioned as to where the entrance stamps were on the US passport.
When I produced her Philippine passport, all was good but we were sternly lectured on the requirement to produce BOTH passports when entering the Philippines so that BOTH passports can be stamped.
Once we got to the US we just used her US passport and had no questions asked.
-Phil

After your wife has been a USC for 3 years you can file.
Otherwise you need to wait for 5 years.
-Phil

This is the best reason to do so.
As well as saving the hassle at the airport when getting your tickets.
-Phil

What a truly helpful reply...
What can they do you say??
If you ever visit the Philippines with your child and they see that your wife/husdand is a citizen of the Philippines and you are bringing a child they could throw you into jail or deny you entry.
Not that is is likely to happen but it could if you pissed some one off....
-P

Dear Children,
It has come to my attention that many of you are upset that folks are taking My
name out of the season.
How I personally feel about this celebration can probably be most easily
understood by those of you who have been blessed with children of your own. I
don't care what you call the day. If you want to celebrate My birth, just GET
ALONG AND LOVE ONE ANOTHER.
Now, having said that, let Me go on. If it bothers you that the town in which
you live doesn't allow a scene depicting My birth, then just put in a small
Nativity scene on your own front lawn. If all My followers did that there
wouldn't be any need for such a scene on the town square because there would be
many of them all around town.
Stop worrying about the fact that people are calling the tree a holiday tree,
instead of a Christmas tree. It was I who made all trees. You can remember Me
anytime you see any tree. Decorate a grape vine if you wish: I actually spoke of
that one in a teaching, explaining who I am in relation to you and what each of
our tasks are. If you have forgotten that one, look up John 15: 1 - 8.
If you want to give Me a present in remembrance of My birth here is my wish
list. Choose something from it:
1. Instead of writing protest letters objecting to the way My birthday is being
celebrated, write letters of love and hope to soldiers away from home. They are
terribly afraid and lonely this time of year. I know, they tell Me all the time.
2. Visit someone in a nursing home. Not just during Christmas time, but all
through the year. You don't have to know them personally. They just need to know
that someone cares about them.
3. Instead of writing the President complaining about the wording on the cards
his staff sends out this year, why don't you write and tell him that you'll be
praying for him and his family? Then follow up. It will be nice hearing from
you again.
4. Instead of giving your children a lot of gifts you can't afford and they
don't need, spend time with them. Tell them the story of My birth, and why I
came to live with you down here. Hold them in your arms and remind them that I
love them.
5. Pick someone who has hurt you in the past and forgive him or her.
6. Did you know that someone in your town will attempt to take their own life
this season because they feel so alone and hopeless? Since you don't know who
that person is, try giving everyone you meet a warm smile; it could make the
difference.
7. Instead of nit picking about what the retailer in your town calls the
holiday, be patient with the people who work there. Give them a warm smile and a
kind word. Even if they aren't allowed to wish you a "Merry Christmas" that
doesn't keep you from wishing them one. Then stop shopping there on Sunday. If
the store didn't make so much money on that day they'd close and let their
employees spend the day at home with their families.
8. If you really want to make a difference, support a missionary-- especially
one who takes My love and Good News to those who have never heard My name.
9. Here's a good one. There are individuals and whole families in your town who
not only will have no "Christmas" tree, but neither will they have any presents
to give or receive. If you don't know them, buy some food and a few gifts and
give them to the Salvation Army or some other charity which believes in Me and
they will make the delivery for you.
10. Finally, if you want to make a statement about your belief in and loyalty to
Me, then behave like a Christian. Don't do things in secret that you wouldn't do
in My presence.. Let people know by your actions and words that you are one of
mine.Don't forget; I am God and can take care of Myself. Just love Me and do
what I have told you to do. I'll take care of all the rest.
Check out the list above and get to work; time is short. I'll help you, but the
ball is now in your court. And do have a most blessed Christmas with all those
whom you love and remember...I LOVE YOU.
JESUS

No more so than the Bush administration....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mitchell-bard/reagan-was-wrong-the-nine_b_628022.html
I was tailgating with my wife and two friends in the parking lot of Miller Park before a Brewers game yesterday, when a guy with a pasted-on, plastic, local-news-anchor smile approached our group. He wanted us to sign a petition to get his "buddy" on the ballot for state treasurer. Of course, the first question I asked him was which party his "buddy" belonged to, and the guy told us he was a Libertarian.
Poor guy, he didn't realize he was approaching a liberal blogger and his progressive friends. Not an audience that was going to easily buy what he had to sell. I politely told him that I wouldn't support a Libertarian candidate, and like a telemarketer dutifully and mechanically following a script provided to him to handle rejection, he asked why I didn't support Libertarians. I explained that I did not harbor a dislike or distrust of government, and that I thought there were certain jobs that only government could do. Without removing the wooden smile from his face, he moved to the next page of his telemarketer script and asked me if he could have one minute to "rebate" what I had said, and he proceeded to tell us that the free market is perfectly efficient and the best way to solve problems. I started to laugh and told him that, yes, the financial collapse two years ago was a great example of the market solving problems. And also, another great example was the oil pouring into the Gulf of Mexico. My wife and friends joined in the laughter, and our Libertarian guest could no longer maintain his fake smile. His voice and facial expression turned angry, and he stormed off to the next group of tailgaters, spitting out something barely intelligible at us as he left.
I thought this interaction perfectly encapsulated the anti-government, pro-market-solution obsession currently running through the right, especially among tea baggers and self-proclaimed libertarians. They love to cite Ronald Reagan's line that the "nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" But I'm far more afraid of someone telling me, "I'm a Libertarian (or Tea Party member) and the market will save you."
You would think from listening to the rhetoric that we have two choices in this country: Either you adopt the right's notion of deregulation and an unfettered free market, or you are a socialist. There is no in-between. Which is, of course, patently false, but also maddeningly ignorant of recent American history. Taking the financial industry as an example, after the election of Franklin Roosevelt, Congress quickly enacted legislation, like the Securities Act of 1933, the Banking Act of 1933 (Glass-Steagall), and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, meant to curb the excesses of an unfettered financial system, which had led to the stock market crash of 1929 and the depression that ensued. And for the next 45 years, the country was able to avoid any mass financial collapses.
Then, beginning with Reagan, and continuing through George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, and reaching its peak with the ultimate deregulation messiah, George W. Bush, the government took down the post-Depression financial regulation structure brick by brick, following a mantra that deregulation helped the market to function freely, and a free market will produce the best results.
What did we get? The savings and loan scandal, the Enron-induced power outages in California, corporate fraud (Enron, etc.) and, ultimately, a financial industry run amok (arcane financial instruments, insanely risky investments that banks profited from regardless of their success, and credit rating agencies handing out AAA ratings like candy to keep customers, just to name some examples), all leading to a near financial collapse that plunged the country (and the rest of the world) into a job-sapping, deep recession.
All evidence would seem to point to the need for some regulation to keep the banks from running amok, but the right still clings to its mantra of deregulation and unfettered free markets.
I also thought it was not a coincidence that not once, not twice, but three times during his two-minute pitch to us, our Libertarian petitioner talked of having the opportunity to "rebate" what I had said about his cause. (Not "rebut" or "debate" or whatever else he actually meant, but "rebate," which had me secretly hoping he had a way to refund to us some of our time he had wasted.) It was fitting because so much of the right wing/Tea Party/libertarian anger is based on false notions (much of it, no doubt, a product of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and the right wing media misinformation machine), and the urgency of his words was not supported by a basic ability to use the English language to make an argument, leaving the content of his claims even more suspect.
I can already hear the complaints now: I'm an elitist snob for chiding someone for making a mistake. If I was pointing out that, say, the guy who scanned our tickets at the Miller Park gate had been less than smooth with his words, I would deserve the criticism (that didn't happen, it's just an example). But here was a guy who was so sure of his beliefs, he not only gave up a Sunday to walk around a baseball stadium parking lot to collect signatures (admirable commitment), but he felt empowered to tell everyone there that he was right and they were wrong. And if you are going to take such a position and hold yourself out as an authority, it is fair to question the knowledge and intelligence underlying the strong assertions.
Our Libertarian petitioner's certainty isn't just simplistic, it is a real impediment to solving our country's problems. The alternative to unfettered free markets is not socialism, but rather, it is free markets with basic regulations in place to prevent abuse, just like the financial regulation architecture that protected the country after the Great Depression. (Somehow, I don't think we were living in a socialist state when Eisenhower and Nixon held the presidency.) I know subtlety is a lost art in modern politics, but if we are to survive, we will have to recognize that there are more than two extreme choices. These same right wingers don't seem to mind when the government subsidies the oil industry, and I doubt that they want to shut down the libraries, public schools, fire departments, and highway maintenance departments, all of which are run by the government (and would not exist if left to a private, free-market model). Conservatives, tea baggers and libertarians want you to think it's a simple dichotomous choice: free markets or socialism, or no government or all government. But such a reductionist view fails to account for how complicated and integrated the relationship between public and private actually is. (Yes, I know, asking for nuance rather than black-and-white distinctions is tragically 20th century.) Let's remember the angry town hall attendees last summer telling members of Congress to keep their government hands off of their Medicare. Even they liked a government program, but they didn't even know it.
There was one aspect of our Libertarian petitioner's approach that especially rang true to me: The false smile covering his real anger. Tea Party leaders are quick to say there is no place in their movement for racism, but at those same rallies you see racist signs about President Obama. Let's not forget the March Harris poll that revealed that 57 percent of Republicans think Obama is a Muslim, and 45 percent think he wasn't born in the United States. Somehow, I doubt these people would be concerned about the religion or place of birth of John Kerry, Hillary Clinton or John Edwards, let alone John McCain, Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani. When right wingers talk about taking "their" country back, it's hard to see "their" as meaning anything but a system in which power rested in white, male, Christian hands. When tea baggers put a happy, smiley face on the movement, I can't help but be wary of the angry snarl underneath. So I wasn't the least bit surprised when our Libertarian petitioner's plastic grin quickly devolved into an angry scowl when he realized that he didn't have the ammunition to win over someone who was even marginally informed.
These are not merely philosophical questions. Late last week, financial reform legislation was watered down at the last minute to ensure its passage. After what happened in 2008, opposing real reform in areas like derivatives and the so-called "Volcker Rules" defies logic. With unemployment hovering around 10 percent thanks to a recession precipitated by a near financial industry collapse, I don't agree with Ronald Reagan. I'm not scared of the government trying to help. But I am terrified of an unfettered free market allowing industry leaders, whether they be in the financial industry or the oil business, ruled by greed, putting the country at risk to unfairly further line their already bulging pockets.
Mitchell Bard

I think not.
The important difference between science and religion is that religion comes with ABSOLUTE statements, that neither can be proved or disproved, and science evolves from relative truths and statements, that can be testified and proven false (which means: science has to develop, in order to replace (partly) untrue theories, and replace them with better ones).
Science does not claim it has absolute knowledge on anything. Religion claims it has.
All scientific theories are in principle disprovable, and in the end all theories will be disproven (at least it can be shown there is a limiiting case in which the theory does not work).
Religion can in principle not be disproven. Which does not contribute either to it's proof. It is also unprovable.
If something is neither provable nor disprovable, then it is useless.
It can only have value to people who prefer to be ignorant, and don't want to get into complicated knowledge, and prefer to believe in something that is disprovable.
Science is for people who realize that in order to aquire knowledge, some work (sometimes a LOT) has to be done! And even despite you put in a LOT of work, someone else may disproof all (or part) of your work! That is : you have to try even harder!
Religion is for people who claim to know EVERYTHING ABSOLUTELY ("God created the world", for instance ) without having done any work to get to that opinion, and for which nobody can give any disproof. So it is a very safe position. You don't have to do WORK for entitling yourself an opinion on matters that seem important, and nobody can force you to do some work for finding a better opinion, cause there lacks the ability to disproof you.

Breast feeding also helps with post pregnancy weight loss.
I am not sure of all the items cited here but I can say for sure that my wife is much happier breast feeding than not...If mom is not happy, nobody is happy

In his January 2006 State of the Union address, President George Bush presented a laundry list of things his administration would do to help America kick its oil habit.
"We'll also fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn but from wood chips and stalks and switchgrass," the president promised.
Many Americans had never heard of switchgrass back then.
Now a lot of switchgrass has been through the mill, so to speak. There has been little evidence that growing grass could actually make a dent in the demand for oil. But now there's new research showing that this prairie plant might actually be a good source of ethanol.
That could be good news. Right now, Americans get their ethanol fuel from corn — so much of it that corn prices have been bouncing up near historic levels. A lot of economists say if the country wants more ethanol, it should not come from food.
Thus, switchgrass. It's a kind of prairie grass, but you don't have to go to a prairie to find it. For example, it grows on the banks of the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland, where Ken Staver has been tending a plot for years. It can reach 6 feet high, is yellowish and is as stiff as a pencil.
"You can see it's done very well here," says Staver, a scientist with the University of Maryland, "with very little care other than when we planted it 10 years ago when we used some herbicide during the establishment phase. But literally the only thing we do out here every year is harvest it."
Switchgrass contains cellulose, the starting material that, with enough heat and the right enzymes and chemicals, can be made into ethanol fuel.
Easy to Grow and Harvest
Staver says one of the good things about this grass is that it pretty much grows by itself.
"It's considered a perennial plant," he says, "so it does reseed some, but mostly these are the original plants. It's not growing back from seedlings every year, it's growing back from the same rootstock."
So you don't have to plant it every year or even fertilize it much. And it's easy to harvest.
These things are essential to make fuel from plants — so-called biofuels. The more energy used to make them — for example, gas for tractors, or electricity to convert them into a liquid fuel — the lower your "net energy yield." In short, if it takes close to a gallon of gasoline to make a gallon of biofuel, why bother?
In a new study, plant scientist Ken Vogel found switchgrass is worth the bother. He's with the federal government's Agricultural Research Service in Nebraska.
Vogel spent five years with farmers growing switchgrass in the Midwest. It was one of the biggest experiments with actual crops. He calculated with what might seem like mind-numbing thoroughness everything that went into each plot.
"This includes the energy used for fuel," he says, "the energy used to make the tractors, the energy used to make the seed to plant the field, the energy used to produce the herbicide, the energy used to produce the fertilizer, the energy used in the harvesting process."
More Efficient than Corn
For every unit of energy used to grow the switchgrass, Vogel says he could get almost 5 1/2 units worth of ethanol. That's a lot more efficient than making ethanol from corn, he says. He's bullish on switchgrass' future.
"The bottom line is perennial energy crops are very net energy-efficient. It is going to be economically feasible, the basic conversion technology has been developed, and it is going to be a viable process."
Vogel has focused on the growing part of the process. He hasn't demonstrated that commercial distilleries can actually achieve the same level of efficiency.
One issue is how to power the distillery. If you use electricity made from coal, you lose some of the advantage of biofuels. Vogel argues that a distillery could regain that advantage by burning leftover parts of the switchgrass to generate energy.
Vogel's research appears in the latest issue of the journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

SIGH....
So did HIV come from an SIV?
It is now generally accepted that HIV is a descendant of a Simian Immunodeficiency Virus because certain strains of SIVs bear a very close resemblance to HIV-1 and HIV-2, the two types of HIV.
HIV-2 for example corresponds to SIVsm, a strain of the Simian Immunodeficiency Virus found in the sooty mangabey (also known as the White-collared monkey), which is indigenous to western Africa.
The more virulent, pandemic strain of HIV, namely HIV-1, was until recently more difficult to place. Until 1999, the closest counterpart that had been identified was SIVcpz, the SIV found in chimpanzees. However, this virus still had certain significant differences from HIV.
What happened in 1999?
In February 1999 a group of researchers from the University of Alabama1 announced that they had found a type of SIVcpz that was almost identical to HIV-1. This particular strain was identified in a frozen sample taken from a captive member of the sub-group of chimpanzees known as Pan troglodytes troglodytes (P. t. troglodytes), which were once common in west-central Africa.
The researchers (led by Paul Sharp of Nottingham University and Beatrice Hahn of the University of Alabama) made the discovery during the course of a 10-year long study into the origins of the virus. They claimed that this sample proved that chimpanzees were the source of HIV-1, and that the virus had at some point crossed species from chimps to humans.
Their final findings were published two years later in Nature magazine2. In this article, they concluded that wild chimps had been infected simultaneously with two different simian immunodeficiency viruses which had "viral sex" to form a third virus that could be passed on to other chimps and, more significantly, was capable of infecting humans and causing AIDS.
These two different viruses were traced back to a SIV that infected red-capped mangabeys and one found in greater spot-nosed monkeys. They believe that the hybridisation took place inside chimps that had become infected with both strains of SIV after they hunted and killed the two smaller species of monkey.
They also concluded that all three 'groups' of HIV-1 - namely Group M, N and O (see our strains and subtypes page for more information on these) - came from the SIV found in P. t. troglodytes, and that each group represented a separate crossover 'event' from chimps to humans.
How could HIV have crossed species?
It has been known for a long time that certain viruses can pass between species. Indeed, the very fact that chimpanzees obtained SIV from two other species of primate shows just how easily this crossover can occur. As animals ourselves, we are just as susceptible. When a viral transfer between animals and humans takes place, it is known as zoonosis.
Below are some of the most common theories about how this 'zoonosis' took place, and how SIV became HIV in humans:
The 'Hunter' Theory
The most commonly accepted theory is that of the 'hunter'. In this scenario, SIVcpz was transferred to humans as a result of chimps being killed and eaten or their blood getting into cuts or wounds on the hunter. Normally the hunter's body would have fought off SIV, but on a few occasions it adapted itself within its new human host and become HIV-1. The fact that there were several different early strains of HIV, each with a slightly different genetic make-up (the most common of which was HIV-1 group M), would support this theory: every time it passed from a chimpanzee to a man, it would have developed in a slightly different way within his body, and thus produced a slightly different strain.
An article published in The Lancet in 20043, also shows how retroviral transfer from primates to hunters is still occurring even today. In a sample of 1099 individuals in Cameroon , they discovered ten (1%) were infected with SFV (Simian Foamy Virus), an illness which, like SIV, was previously thought only to infect primates. All these infections were believed to have been acquired through the butchering and consumption of monkey and ape meat. Discoveries such as this have led to calls for an outright ban on bushmeat hunting to prevent simian viruses being passed to humans.
The Oral Polio Vaccine (OPV) theory
Some other rather controversial theories have contended that HIV was transferred iatrogenically (i.e. via medical interventions). One particularly well-publicised idea is that polio vaccines played a role in the transfer.
In his book, The River, the journalist Edward Hooper suggests that HIV can be traced to the testing of an oral polio vaccine called Chat, given to about a million people in the Belgian Congo, Ruanda and Urundi in the late 1950s. To be reproduced, live polio vaccine needs to be cultivated in living tissue, and Hooper's belief is that Chat was grown in kidney cells taken from local chimps infected with SIVcmz. This, he claims, would have resulted in the contamination of the vaccine with chimp SIV, and a large number of people subsequently becoming infected with HIV-1.
Many people have contested Hooper's theories and insist that local chimps were not infected with a strain of SIVcmz that is closely linked to HIV. Furthermore, the oral administration of the vaccine would seem insufficient to cause infection in most people (SIV/HIV needs to get directly into the bloodstream to cause infection - the lining of the mouth and throat generally act as good barriers to the virus).4
In February 2000 the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia (one of the original manufacturers of the Chat vaccine) announced that it had discovered in its stores a phial of polio vaccine that had been used as part of the program. The vaccine was subsequently analysed and in April 2001 it was announced that no trace had been found of either HIV or chimpanzee SIV.5 A second analysis confirmed that only macaque monkey kidney cells, which cannot be infected with SIV or HIV, were used to make Chat.6 While this is just one phial of many, it means that the OPV theory remains unproven.
The fact that the OPV theory accounts for just one (group M) of several different groups of HIV also suggests that transferral must have happened in other ways too, as does the fact that HIV seems to have existed in humans before the vaccine trials were ever carried out. More about when HIV came into being can be found below.
The Contaminated Needle Theory
This is an extension of the original 'hunter' theory. In the 1950s, the use of disposable plastic syringes became commonplace around the world as a cheap, sterile way to administer medicines. However, to African healthcare professionals working on inoculation and other medical programmes, the huge quantities of syringes needed would have been very costly. It is therefore likely that one single syringe would have been used to inject multiple patients without any sterilisation in between. This would rapidly have transferred any viral particles (within a hunter's blood for example) from one person to another, creating huge potential for the virus to mutate and replicate in each new individual it entered, even if the SIV within the original person infected had not yet converted to HIV.
The Colonialism Theory
The colonialism or 'Heart of Darkness' theory, is one of the more recent theories to have entered into the debate. It is again based on the basic 'hunter' premise, but more thoroughly explains how this original infection could have led to an epidemic. It was first proposed in 2000 by Jim Moore, an American specialist in primate behaviour, who published his findings in the journal AIDS Research and Human Retroviruses.7
During the late 19th and early 20th century, much of Africa was ruled by colonial forces. In areas such as French Equatorial Africa and the Belgian Congo, colonial rule was particularly harsh and many Africans were forced into labour camps where sanitation was poor, food was scarce and physical demands were extreme. These factors alone would have been sufficient to create poor health in anyone, so SIV could easily have infiltrated the labour force and taken advantage of their weakened immune systems to become HIV. A stray and perhaps sick chimpanzee with SIV would have made a welcome extra source of food for the workers.
Moore also believes that many of the labourers would have been inoculated with unsterile needles against diseases such as smallpox (to keep them alive and working), and that many of the camps actively employed prostitutes to keep the workers happy, creating numerous possibilities for onward transmission. A large number of labourers would have died before they even developed the first symptoms of AIDS, and those that did get sick would not have stood out as any different in an already disease-ridden population. Even if they had been identified, all evidence (including medical records) that the camps existed was destroyed to cover up the fact that a staggering 50% of the local population were wiped out there.
One final factor Moore uses to support his theory, is the fact that the labour camps were set up around the time that HIV was first believed to have passed into humans - the early part of the 20th century.
The Conspiracy Theory
Some say that HIV is a 'conspiracy theory' or that it is 'man-made'. A recent survey carried out in the US for example, identified a significant number of African Americans who believe HIV was manufactured as part of a biological warfare programme, designed to wipe out large numbers of black and homosexual people.8 Many say this was done under the auspices of the US federal 'Special Cancer Virus Program' (SCVP), possibly with the help of the CIA. Linked in to this theory is the belief that the virus was spread (either deliberately or inadvertently) to thousands of people all over the world through the smallpox inoculation programme, or to gay men through Hepatitis B vaccine trials. While none of these theories can be definitively disproved, the evidence given to back them up is usually based upon supposition and speculation, and ignores the clear link between SIV and HIV or the fact that the virus has been identified in people as far back as 1959.

That may be true for the average male or non-pregnant female but for those women who are pregnant and get H1N1, there is a much higher possibility of death for both the woman and the child.

A flywheel in a vaccuum chamber using magnetic bearings would be almost perfect I would think....

Not so surprised about that...
Lets just say, a conservative, who wants things to stay as they are or go back to some point like they were before, would not have moved to investigate a lightening strike or flowing lava to collect fire...
Only someone who was interested in change, would have done that, most conservatives I know, don't want change... unless its to go back to the way is was at some point in the past...
To advance to a new point or standing in communal structure requires a willingness to take a chance on something new. A conservative is not going to do that...
-------------
Definitions of conservative on the Web:
resistant to change
having social or political views favoring conservatism
cautious: avoiding excess; "a conservative estimate"
a person who is reluctant to accept changes and new ideas

Just remember that without those 'liberal yanks' you would still be living in a tree without fire...

Ahhh... WRONG!!
Once again... WRONG!!

Actually there is but too many people object to it.
Simply implant a RFI, its smaller than the implantable birth control device, you could even swallow it. Every person would be automaticly swiped at every street corner and anyone without a RFI implant is deported. A swipe ie required to get a job an any employer who does not comply is shut down.
No more lost children and no more illegals...

Actually there is but too many people object to it.
Simply implant a RFI, its smaller than the implantable birth control device, you could even swallow it. Every person would be automaticly swiped at every street corner and anyone without a RFI implant is deported. A swipe ie required to get a job an any employer who does not comply is shut down.
No more lost children and no more illegals...

President Obama and Democrats in Congress have come to the end of a 14-month health care odyssey. The result is a historic new health law that will make sweeping changes in our health system over the next few years. They include new consumer protections, coverage of millions of uninsured people, penalties for individuals and businesses who don't buy insurance, attempts to control rising costs, and Medicare savings and new taxes to pay for it all. Here is a year-by-year look at what's in store:
2010
Adults who can't get coverage because of a pre-existing medical condition can join a high-risk insurance pool (this is an interim step pending the launch in 2014 of competitive health insurance marketplaces and premium subsidies).
Insurance companies will have to issue policies for children with pre-existing conditions. They will not be allowed to revoke existing policies if people get sick. Lifetime limits on coverage will be banned in new coverage and annual limits will be restricted. Preventive services will be fully covered, with no co-pays or deductibles. Coverage will be available for dependent children until they turn 26.
Get the new
PD toolbar!
People in the Medicare prescription drug program will receive a $250 rebate as the first step in closing the coverage gap, or "doughnut hole," that requires them to pay full freight after they have spent $2,700 on drugs. The gap would be phased out entirely by 2020.
Certain small businesses will start getting tax credits to offset up to 35 percent of the cost of insuring their employees. That will rise to 50 percent in 2014.
Plans must have "an effective appeals process" for decisions and claims. States will get grants to set up programs that help consumers with complaints or questions about health insurance. The federal government will set up a website to help people in different states figure out their insurance options.
The first tax increase kicks in: A 10 percent tax on indoor tanning services.
2011
Medicare changes will include free annual wellness visits; little to no cost-sharing for preventive care, like immunizations and cancer screenings; bonuses to primary care doctors and general surgeons; a new Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation to test ways to provide better, more efficient care; and, the start of a phase-out of overpayments to private Medicare Advantage insurers. People in the prescription "doughnut hole" will receive discounts on prescriptions.
2012
There will be new money for primary care services and new incentives to encourage doctors to join together in "accountable care organizations." The government will track re-admission rates at hospitals and impose penalty fees on hospitals with the highest rates.
2013
This is when higher taxes will begin for households with income above $250,000 and individuals above $200,000. The Medicare payroll tax on earnings above those amounts will rise from 1.45 percent to 2.35 percent. Unearned income above those amounts, such as dividends, will now be subject to a 3.8 percent tax.
In addition, maximum contributions to pre-tax Flexible Savings Account contributions will be limited to $2,500 a year (down from the current $3,050 for individuals).
There will be a new 2.9 percent excise tax on medical devices.
Medicare will sponsor a national pilot program on "payment bundling" -- paying hospitals, doctors and other providers based on patient outcome, not services provided.
2014
More consumer protections begin. Insurance companies will not be able to deny policies to anyone based on their health status or to refuse coverage of a treatment based on pre-existing health conditions. Their ability to charge higher rates to people based on age, geography, family size or tobacco use will be limited. Annual limits on coverage will be abolished.
Each state will open a health insurance exchange, or marketplace, for individuals and small businesses without coverage. People will be able to comparison shop for standardized health packages. There will be a multistate private plan available nationwide, supervised by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Tax credits will be available to make insurance and care affordable for people who make too much to qualify for Medicaid, but have incomes below 400 percent of poverty.
Most people will be required to buy insurance coverage or pay penalties that start at $95 in 2014 and rise to $695 or 2.5 percent of income in 2016. Employers with 50 or more workers who do not offer coverage will have to pay annual fees.
Medicaid eligibility will increase to 133 percent of the poverty level ($14,404 for individuals) for everyone under 65 (when they qualify for Medicare).
2015
A new Independent Payment Advisory Board will be formed to come up with ways to lower Medicare costs and promote better care. The recommendations will go to Congress and private insurers.
2018
This is when the most controversial new tax begins, a 40 percent excise tax on insurance companies and plan administrators for any family plan that costs more than $27,500. The tax applies to the cost above that threshold. There are higher thresholds for retirees over 55 and plans that cover workers in high-risk jobs.
2019
The new system will have reduced the number of uninsured people by 32 million, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. That will leave an estimated 23 million uninsured, one-third of them illegal immigrants. Coverage of legal residents too young for Medicare (under age 65) will be 94 percent, up from 83 percent now.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/26/health-reform-a-year-by-year-list-of-what-happens-and-when/?icid=main|netscape|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politicsdaily.com%2F2010%2F03%2F26%2Fhealth-reform-a-year-by-year-list-of-what-happens-and-when%2F

The Constitution as written by Thomas Jefferson, did not contain any passage authorizing any Federal income tax. That was added for paying the WWII war costs.
No more misinformed than the ones in your head.

I will be happy to assist you any way I can. Both here on the boards and by PM.
Congrats on your AOS!!
-Phil

I have found that for the past 2 times I was in the Philippines, the exchange rate right at the Manila airport was better than anything I found here in the states...
Make sure he has your cell number so he can call you from the pay phones inside customs.
Also, if I recall correctly, you do not NEED to wait across the street... When I walked out the exit doors after clearing customs, on MY right hand side, there was a waiting area just outside the fence, where my beautiful lady was bouncing up and down waiting for me.
Have a great time and remember, while I don't want to be a party pooper, these things sometimes don't work out. Enjoy your time together and let the future sort itself out.
-Phil

We had record deficits while the moron was in power too. Not much difference...