a small glimpse of our future

[airdvr 210]

(a) Outpatient Hospitals – (1) In General – Section 1833(t)(3)(C)(iv) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395(t)(3)(C)(iv)) is amended – (A) in the first sentence – (i) by inserting “(which is subject to the productivity adjustment described in subclause (II) of such section)” after “1886(b)(3)(B)(iii); and (ii) by inserting “(but not below 0)” after “reduced”; and (B) in the second sentence, by inserting “and which is subject, beginning with 2010 to the productivity adjustment described in section 1886(b)(3)(B)(iii)(II).

Hey Nancy....FUCK YOU!

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Rookie120 0]

What the FUCk is that?

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[Andy9o8 2]

This is a silly commentary. All legislation and/or statutes about virtually everything gets amended that way.

[airdvr 210]

OK...try this one...

(viii) VENDING MACHINES.—In the case of an article of food sold from a vending machine that (I) does not permit a prospective purchaser to examine the Nutrition Facts Panel before purchasing the article or does not otherwise provide visible nutrition information at the point of purchase; and (II) is operated by a person who is engaged in the business of owning or operating 20 or more vending machines, the vending machine operator shall provide a sign in close proximity to each article of food or the selection button that includes a clear and conspicuous statement disclosing the number of calories contained in the article.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

(a) Outpatient Hospitals – (1) In General – Section 1833(t)(3)(C)(iv) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395(t)(3)(C)(iv)) is amended – (A) in the first sentence – (i) by inserting “(which is subject to the productivity adjustment described in subclause (II) of such section)” after “1886(b)(3)(B)(iii); and (ii) by inserting “(but not below 0)” after “reduced”; and (B) in the second sentence, by inserting “and which is subject, beginning with 2010 to the productivity adjustment described in section 1886(b)(3)(B)(iii)(II).

Hey Nancy....FUCK YOU!

1) post a link

2) is there a point?

[airdvr 210]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703399204574505423751140690.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

(a) Outpatient Hospitals – (1) In General – Section 1833(t)(3)(C)(iv) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395(t)(3)(C)(iv)) is amended – (A) in the first sentence – (i) by inserting “(which is subject to the productivity adjustment described in subclause (II) of such section)” after “1886(b)(3)(B)(iii); and (ii) by inserting “(but not below 0)” after “reduced”; and (B) in the second sentence, by inserting “and which is subject, beginning with 2010 to the productivity adjustment described in section 1886(b)(3)(B)(iii)(II).

Hey Nancy....FUCK YOU!

1) post a link

2) is there a point?

only one that the liberals wouldn't understand because they don't understand personal freedoms.

[billvon 3,006]

>only one that the liberals wouldn't understand because they don't understand
>personal freedoms.

Well, based on the first post, apparently conservatives can't read to begin with.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

OK...try this one...

(viii) VENDING MACHINES.—In the case of an article of food sold from a vending machine that (I) does not permit a prospective purchaser to examine the Nutrition Facts Panel before purchasing the article or does not otherwise provide visible nutrition information at the point of purchase; and (II) is operated by a person who is engaged in the business of owning or operating 20 or more vending machines, the vending machine operator shall provide a sign in close proximity to each article of food or the selection button that includes a clear and conspicuous statement disclosing the number of calories contained in the article.

But it's nothing new. It's our present, and it's our past. There has long been constant tension between compelling businesses, manufacturers, etc. to act to promote the public interest, and the business's interests, since enacting those measures usually increases costs (and thus risks decreasing profits). That was the case back when fire escapes were made mandatory after the Triangle Shirtwaist fire; it was the case when air bags and anti-lock brakes were made commonplace in automobiles, and it remains the case in the issue you feature.

It's all about balancing interests - and since it's often done (or not done) by laws and government, the results of elections really do have an effect on everyone's lives.

[airdvr 210]

Quote

Quote

OK...try this one...

(viii) VENDING MACHINES.—In the case of an article of food sold from a vending machine that (I) does not permit a prospective purchaser to examine the Nutrition Facts Panel before purchasing the article or does not otherwise provide visible nutrition information at the point of purchase; and (II) is operated by a person who is engaged in the business of owning or operating 20 or more vending machines, the vending machine operator shall provide a sign in close proximity to each article of food or the selection button that includes a clear and conspicuous statement disclosing the number of calories contained in the article.

But it's nothing new. It's our present, and it's our past. There has long been constant tension between compelling businesses, manufacturers, etc. to act to promote the public interest, and the business's interests, since enacting those measures usually increases costs (and thus risks decreasing profits). That was the case back when fire escapes were made mandatory after the Triangle Shirtwaist fire; it was the case when air bags and anti-lock brakes were made commonplace in automobiles, and it remains the case in the issue you feature.

It's all about balancing interests - and since it's often done (or not done) by laws and government, the results of elections really do have an effect on everyone's lives.

Regulations on vending machines is HC ? Seriously?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

only one that the liberals wouldn't understand because they don't understand personal freedoms.

I always laugh whenever I read a childish, gratuitous bash like this. I think: "Great! - that's one more swing-voting moderate who will vote Democrat when he reads this."

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Regulations on vending machines is HC ? Seriously?

It's a bit of a stretch, but yeah, it can be; at least with regard to machines that vend food/drink. The idea being that "hopefully" it helps consumers educate themselves on the nutritional value of items at point-of-sale, like in the supermarket; and if we eat better, we'll be healthier, thus helping keep health care costs down. At least I presume that's the logic behind it.

[airdvr 210]

Quote

Quote

Regulations on vending machines is HC ? Seriously?

It's a bit of a stretch, but yeah, it can be; at least with regard to machines that vend food/drink. The idea being that "hopefully" it helps consumers educate themselves on the nutritional value of items at point-of-sale, like in the supermarket; and if we eat better, we'll be healthier, thus helping keep health care costs down. At least I presume that's the logic behind it.

I understand the logic too. I walk up to a machine and see that Reese's cup isn't too good for me, I won't buy it. Hmm...wouldn't have known that without the label. Thank god for the nanny state!

I think the truth is probably somewhere closer to...wait for it....some congressman's constituent has a company that makes the labels. Or better, has a vending machine company and knows his competition, who has over 20 vending machines, can't afford to change his machines to meet the current requirement.

It's never that simple

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Andy9o8 2]

I imagine it's all of those factors - those you and I each cite.

Being middle-aged, with a slower metabolism than when I was in my 20's, I must pro-actively watch my weight via diet and exercise. Sometimes I'll be in a 7-Eleven and want to grab a granola bar for a quick snack. I will comparison shop the nutrition labels, and generally buy the one lower in calories. If I had the chance to do that at a vending machine, I'd avail myself of it.

[gjhdiver 0]

Jeez, I so don't care about this stuff.

Anyone who thinks this stuff is unusual, or an attack on personal freedoms, hasn't really been paying too much attention to what's been going on the last 10 years.

There's better battles to fight than this, but if the teabagger types want to tilt at vending machine legislation, go right ahead. Just let me pull up a chair and get a beer. I love watching idiots beat themselves with the wrong end of the stick.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

>only one that the liberals wouldn't understand because they don't understand
>personal freedoms.

Well, based on the first post, apparently conservatives can't read to begin with.

what? I guess you can't see that the government will controll our health care and how we conduct ouselves according to what they feel is good for us. The entire democrat health care bill does not address cost of health care at all. It adresses government control of the health care system and control of us by trying to regulate how we take care of ourselves(like what we eat) by putting many regulations on everything they feel is unhealthy. They put this into a bill so large and confusing that nobody can understand it. Congress can not even understand it. This bill will give health care to illegals, pay for abortions, increase health care costs to most people, and give the government the right to choose for you.

As I said " liberals wouldn't understand because they don't understand personal freedoms"

[billvon 3,006]

>what? I guess you can't see that the government will controll our
>health care and how we conduct ouselves according to what they feel is
>good for us.

Like I said, many conservatives can't read. They are claiming things like "government will control all our healthcare" which indicates they are either unable to read any of the bills currently before Congress, or are intentionally lying. (Or, to be charitable, they may just be listening to someone _else_ who is lying.)

>They put this into a bill so large and confusing that nobody can
>understand it. Congress can not even understand it.

Hmm. I understood the first post. It's not hard; it's basically what legislative markup looks like in plain text. (They don't use Word.) Perhaps only people who can understand what's being discussed should be allowed to vote on it.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Hmm. I understood the first post. It's not hard; it's basically what legislative markup looks like in plain text. (They don't use Word.) Perhaps only people who can understand what's being discussed should be allowed to vote on it.

sounds good to me, but that would leave out at least half of congress also. who was that democrat that said "why read the bill? I would need a lawyer to help me understand it." How about we just put the bill into understandable langauge and have the entire congress understand it before they can vote on it?

[airdvr 210]

Quote

Perhaps only people who can understand what's being discussed should be allowed to vote on it.

Yep. They know more about what's good for me than I do. Perhaps only land owners should be allowed to vote. They understand more about what's being discussed than the silly renters.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

only one that the liberals wouldn't understand because they don't understand personal freedoms.

I always laugh whenever I read a childish, gratuitous bash like this. I think: "Great! - that's one more swing-voting moderate who will vote Democrat when he reads this."

I would guess that your assumption would be wrong after seeing the elections this week.