There are subtle verbal cues that give away the dominant modality the person thinks with: visual, auditory, or kinesthetic, then you can tailor the session for that modality, using inductions for feeling- or hearing-oriented subjects. My dominant modality is kinesthetic, so I tend to use those first anyway.
Even though we live in a visually stimulating environment, and society tends to express things to us in visual ways, the goal of hypnosis is to relax the person and guide them to a comfortable place, so we can relate to people how they are internally and we don't have to worry about making everything highly visual.
I do suspect it is the grounding effect, not bare feet, but walking on bare dirt ground and among trees and plants. The logic would be that whatever causes allergies, say pollen, nature creates the antidote as well, but we have been living in our modern concrete sanitized houses for so long, that we don't expose our noses to nature's chemicals.
It's not. What you quote doesn't claim that it is, either.
The federal government has (at least in theory) limitations imposed by the Constitution. Within those limitations, though, it can operate on any theory of foreign policy that it wants, including that of "core interests".
If the country’s “core interests” can be defined and redefined based on the whimsy and preference of the current administration, then for the Trump administration to suggest that a certain thing will “always” be in the core interests of the country is ridiculous. The next administration will have their own core interests. Also, what a waste of resources that is.
> The next administration will have their own core interests.
This is sort of the whole point of elections. The government's core interests are not static. When the article says "always", it's from the frame of reference of the current administration, and it's pretty standard for whoever is the current administration to speak as if their stance has always been correct and will always be correct.
The framing here is that "America" always holds these things to be true, and any past discrepancy from that was due to bad leadership. This writing style isn't unique to today's administration, you can find examples from basically any government across history.
the congresspeople on the house arms and means committees who approve massive defense budget spending to companies X and Y, then buy shares in X and Y before the spending approvals are public?
The corruption is so entrenched and so out of control, the only way out of this mess is for regular people to just stop using the health care system. Yes, there's no alternative, and yes, it means living a riskier life. It sucks, and it's not what we want to hear, but they can only charge us if we show up and purchase the product, and that's the last lever of power we can wield.
I'm a single contractor and can't really justify it. It saves me about 8k per year and this would be a bronze plan through MediCali if I got it. People would say "well what if you get a cancer or something" and yea that may be true but in that instance not only would I be out that premium but also the deductible and it won't even cover everything so maybe I'm actually better off stacking cash until the inevitable.
I'm right there with you - this is a case study in "perverse incentives." There is zero benefit to "paying into the system" to be had under the current model. Better to chance it and then sign up for a plan at the last minute since insurers can't deny you based on pre-conditions.
This strategy is why there are open-enrollment periods for ACA-compliant plans. I had a startup back in 2014 where I had us on HC.gov/ACA market insurance. A billing SNAFU on Blue Cross's part (that year was really rough for HC.gov!) ended up getting that insurance cancelled for nonpayment about a month in, which is when I discovered that our only coverage options were all non-compliant short-term policies, all of of which excluded preexisting conditions and wouldn't underwrite one of my children at all due to an unexplained seizure several years earlier.
(We resolved the situation by finding a bank-shot qualifying event that allowed us to re-enroll --- it was extremely situational and had to do with my wife and I simultaneously leaving our jobs within a short window of time.)
That's indeed the play for non-corporate-insured consumers. Short-term insurance was $1,000 a year for a healthy person last time I checked. Just keep renewing until you need ACA-compliant insurance for some reason.
But back to my point: that does nothing to solve the root cause, which is the price inflation. And Washington is so deeply compromised that they will never fix it. The only solution lies with us just walking away. We hate to bargain a price on getting exposed to the ugly side of life, like disease, discomfort, and death, but indeed, everything has a price. And we will continue to be tested on our willingness to pay it with until we start playing hardball.
Regular people are already not using the healthcare system to a large degree. But it's not a realistic ask in perpetuity. If someone gets ill enough, they will get healthcare or they will die.
"Healthcare too expensive? Have you considered dying?"
Sorry, what are you going to do when you get into a car accident and they rush you to the hospital? Assuming you're even conscious. "No, I'm voting with my wallet!" flatlines Come on.
What if we used our collective power to fix the system? (Up to and including replacing it with something that works for the majority, and not the minority.)
How can you be so naive? Like I said. It’s not what we want to hear or think about. But it is the only route left. Either we stop buying the product or they keep raising prices on us.
> The value of 0.14 found for the fitted scaling parameter means that only 14% of those who were tested PCR-positively actually became infected with SARS-CoV-2.
File under commonly witnessed yet highly stigmatized facts.
Why assume single people have had a lack of life events? I'm about to hit 40, and I've had enough life events for 3 lifetimes already, and I'm also single. I look and feel like I'm 29, though. I chalk it up to a healthy lifestyle and plenty of sleep.
It's an amichail question. It's usually based on weird and severely flawed assumptions, occasionally he asks a question that doesn't make you think, "What's this guy smoking?"
Well it was a democratic republic. Now it is an electoral autocracy. He fixed it so good those christians will never have (or be able) to vote again. Just like he said he would. A Republic where the representatives are chosen by a popular vote are still democracies.
Representatives are chosen directly by the voters of their districts and senators directly by the voters of their state. Electors are selected however their state decides, so yeah, the president isn't necessarily democratically chosen. Neither are judges. In practice though the electors are chosen based on the state vote. Saying the us wasn't a democracy is narrowing the definition of democracy quite a bit.
reply