In a previous decade I had to initiate an emergency maneuver to avoid death on the motorcycle once a month or so.  Definitely kept me on my toes.  Now I have to do it practically every ride, or nearly so.  in nearly every near-death experience I've had lately I could see the driver either talking on a phone or looking at it.  I will never give up my sport bike, I need the power and maneuverability to keep clear of these nimrods.  Indeed riding my Goldwing now gives me the Heebie Geevies because it has neither the speed nor the maneuverability to escape witless cagers bent on my imminent destruction (it an 1100cc bike older than any of my students).  I know that's not how it is, but it is how it seems.  I should see it gone, but no one wants it and it does do miles pretty well.

The problem is there is nothing for it.  You can pass all the laws you want, folks will still do it.  You can't disable the machines, passengers use them, often for good reason.  So we all have to beware that much more, and we will have occasional tragedies.  Unintended consequences.

I doubt I'll ever go in an airplane accident.  I mishandled mine (badly), but on the only thing bent was the prop, and I'm very careful.  But I could easily go from a motorcycle accident, being careful isn't near enough.  My radar sense is really, really good when I'm riding a lot. But it isn't perfect.  I won't stop, living in fear isn't living.  But for the first time I could easily see myself hurt or killed on the bike.  It is just that bad.  I used to proselytize bikes all the time, but not any more.  Can't have someone's blood on my hands.  If you ride, think about it carefully.  Make certain your bike has the oomph to get you out of harm's way.  If it doesn't give it up or get one that does.  If you know young people mulling over a bike, tell them not to.  It is just too damn dangerous now.

When on a bike, always assume you're invisible.  Further, assume every vehicle is manner by a homicidal maniac who will go to any length to kill you.  Sooner or later one will inadvertently act in this exact manner.  Probably sooner.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/3/susan-rice-ordered-unmasking-trump-team-intel-bloo/

At what point will people start going to prison for this public corruption?

Trump can start draining the swamp by having our Attorney General start charging public officials with corruption and sending them to prison. That would include Rice, Huma Abedin, Lois Lerner, etc etc.

Typical Washington comity says to let such thing go so they aren't characterized as political witch trials, ala some third world shitholes. Fuck that. Someone needs to start paying the price for political corruption.

I don't have time to address the prebate system, Joe, but what you describe shows the inherent stupidity of having health insurance being tied to employment with an employer willing to provide it.

Groups should be able to get together and form their own pools - AOPA, CAF, EAA, NRA, etc. to provide competition in the health care arena.

Before Obamacare, Wisconsin had a high risk pool called Badgercare. It was designed precisely for people like your family as you described. And the States is where this should reside, not FedGov.

Hence the ACA.  Set up a penalty so healthy people who don't have health insurance have to pay in anyway.

Why do you seem to think it's acceptable for a government to tell its citizens what they will and will not purchase? I'm still waiting to see the authority for it because the general welfare clause fails.

Call it a tax, because truly that's what it is.  We like to give tax breaks to promote desired behavior (owning a house, for example) so we tax an undesirable behavior.  Lots of those, by the way, like cigarette and liquor taxes.  I have to admit, the ACA is more sweeping.  This is a simple thing.

Article 1, Section 8 actually specifies that the Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes. It doesn't mention health care.

If healthy people don't put in the whole thing doesn't work.

Why should a healthy person pay for a sick person? That makes no sense other than a sick person is going to have a higher health care cost and may need some help paying for it.

We're back to being shut out if you have a "preexisting condition", which the insurance companies can declare you breathing.

Insurance is like any other business: it provides a service in exchange for payment. It exists to make money. If an insurance company decides to charge a higher premium for a person with a pre-existing condition (because that person is at a higher risk of having to need the insurance) then why shouldn't they be allowed to do that?

The ACA, as imperfect as it is, is a step in the right direction.  If your politicians could just get together and cooperate, I bet they could fix its shortcomings and turn it into something that would really work for the American people.  It isn't going anywhere.

The ACA is a terrible law and it's failing. Maybe the Democrats should've actually put some thought into this and sought bipartisan support instead of ramming it through. Or maybe they shouldn't have done it at all, but then that is completely against the progressive mindset. The government must be involved in every aspect of a person's life and control them.

As far as what does the Constitution allow and what doesn't it, that question is now moot. The ACA got the blessing of the Supreme Court, its a done deal.  Yeah, perhaps some court in the future will see differently, but that won't come any time soon.

The SCOTUS also once ruled against Dredd Scott and that internment camps were legal. The point being that the SCOTUS doesn't always get it right.

Courts respect precedent.  You guys like to go on and on about what's Constitutional and what isn't.  Think about this: nine of the best legal scholars in America often can't agree what is and isn't Constitutional.  Do you really think its that cut and dried?  Do you really think your sophistries are the end of the game?

They can't agree on what's Constitutional because (currently, anyway) at least four of them would rather look at what they want the Constitution to say instead of what it actually says.

Liberals use the courts at all levels to change the law to what they want it to say instead of using the mechanisms in place to actually change the laws: state houses and the Congress.

I think Trey Gowdy would be be very good.

If you want to stick up for a guy who snubs respected international leaders because he doesn't like a photographer noting that's it's time for a customary handshake, so be it.

That's the stupid part.  The snub was to the photographer, not to Merkel.  The press is upset because they looked like idiots.  Again.

Would they send her to a men's prison or women's prison?

Yes

Turbine Inlet Temperature gauges?