Ron78

It is cooler to watch the seasons in chronological order because of a few guest appearances here and there, but at the end of the day it doesn't really matter that much. You will string it all together in the end either way. TNG was an awesome show. I liked DS9 just a little more. Like you I grew up on the original series, but despite it's charm and classic characters it is hard to get past just how dated the special effects, props, and sets are, so I understand why you skipped a couple seasons.

I saw Birth of the Dragon. I give it a 5/10. The only thing I really liked about it was Phillip Ng did a pretty good job of mimicking Bruce Lee's speech and mannerisms.

No hint. It is supposed to take place 10 years prior to the original series.

I think the PPV is reasonably priced too. Even though I think McGregor stands almost no chance of winning, I am definitely buying the PPV because I want to see exactly how it goes down. McGregor claims to have a strategy. I want to see how far that strategy can take him.

A post Voyager series that opened up the door for cameos of actors from previous Trek shows was the only way to go. That might of had me purchasing a CBS subscription.

I don't agree. Next Generation had some seriously good writing in its last 4 seasons. Enterprise had a decent 1st season, and a strong 4th season. Voyager absolutely sucked, but I would still take it over this Discovery crap.

Because you have to walk a fine line between the style of a show set 10 years prior (that is made in the 2010's) and the style of the original series (which was made in the 60's). They have done a good job of this with prior incarnations of Trek, but it doesn't even look like they are trying to make this series fit the Star Trek puzzle. Everything looks completely different and incongruent with the timeline. Also, there needs to be continuity in other ways (like the Klingons for example). The Klingons were a significant part of the Star Trek story-line for basically it's entire existence. Make up has changed them over the years, but now the Klingons they are introducing in this new series hardly resemble the Klingons we have known in the past (not out of necessity, but out of choice). CBS is being lazy, and it is going to result in this series being a bust.

It looks like crap. I just watched "All Good Things" on Hulu. I hadn't seen it in well over a decade and wanted to see if it still holds up. Part of the appeal is nostalgia, but I still really enjoyed it. I really missed those days of Star Trek. This monstrosity bears no resemblance.

I saw War for the Planet of the Apes, and being a huge fan of the first two, I was really disappointed in this film. I give it a 5.5 out of 10. The CG was top notch, but the plot had some serious holes.

I prefer this one...

To be honest, my line work would also be eliminated if Direct Pay Health Care was implemented, and I would have to find a new line of work as well. I don't think we should maintain a grossly inefficient process just to keep people comfortable in the same jobs they have always had.

Saving money on Health Care would mean that people would have more money to invest elsewhere in the economy (maybe even other areas of insurance coverage).

@Larry I completely agree with you that if what we meant by "eliminate the insurance companies" was instead give our money to the government and let them administer our Health Care, that would not be an ideal situation because the government has a tendency to mismanage the money we give them (just look at social security). You have missed what the concept "Direct Pay Health Care" represents. It is explained in the article I posted. Basically you are paying a monthly "membership fee" to providers to mitigate risk instead of a monthly premium to insurance companies. If you eliminate insurance companies from the equation, it could be a huge savings. You are right that insurance companies have always allowed about 80% of what providers billed them (an allowance is a combination of what the insurance company pays and what the patient pays out of pocket), but that doesn't factor in what the insurance companies deny. Insurance companies outright deny coverage sometimes (for a variety of reasons) and that costs providers or patients huge sometimes. You would obviously eliminate those denials with Direct Pay. Also, the portion of the 80% that is patient liability is so high sometimes (due to the affordable care act) that patients are not paying everything they owe. Hospitals are taking a hit nationwide because of this. Also, I think you're wrong about Hospitals being able to cut their staff under a single payer system. Medicare, for example, is so inefficient and complex that it requires special staff with a special understanding of that payer. A single government payer would probably require more attention (not less).

The insurance company still represents a "middle man" that has to pay its employees and score a profit. You remove that from the equation and the savings can be huge. Plus, we don't get as much competition among insurance companies as we would like because there is a lack of competition across state lines. Reimbursement from Medicaid and Medicare would still probably have to exist in some form.

Competition on the free market. You would have options. What's to stop insurance companies from pocketing the difference? They make out like bandits.

It cuts out the middle man. Insurance companies make money by assessing high premiums, deductibles, co-pays, and co-insurances. Also, by negotiating discounts with providers and delaying or outright denying payment to providers. If you could eliminate the insurance companies, it would reduce costs for both patients and providers. It has been tested in really small markets with success. If you implemented it on a large scale, I am willing to bet it would be more successful because of greater pooling.

$15,000 to leave? That is not how the direct pay model works. You pay a monthly fee for "membership" to a provider instead of paying an insurance premium (and all the overhead that comes with insurance). Insurance companies cost both medical providers and patients tons of money. If you could work out a system that eliminates the need for medical insurance, you could reduce the cost of Health Care.

Direct Pay Health Care might be the best solution: http://www.netquote.com/health-insurance/news/health-care-membership-fees Eliminate the middle man (commercial insurance companies) and you will reduce the cost of health care.

I saw Wonder Woman, and I give it a B+. It wasn't a perfect film, but it was entertaining. It was certainly better than Batman vs Superman or Suicide Squad. In some ways, I felt like they were trying to use a similar formula to Captain America: The First Avenger (e.g., the military love interest, the eccentric back-up crew, and the committed super hero wielding a shield against the Germans).